What in the observable universe is tied to the world outside the simulation? I think that's precisely the point: we cannot readily conceive a universe in which even our laws of mathematics don't apply, because we have no frame of reference for such a thing. We may not be an accurate simulation of the outside world; perhaps we're one of many concurrent simulations in which one slight "universal" variable has been changed, for the simulators to observe the results.
Questions like this are ultimately "god" questions, and being an agnostic, I think they reside firmly in the realm of philosophy, not science.
Just to clarify: What the Wiki mentions is a just reference to the older game (which never actually existed, anyway)... there's nothing interactive. And as the OP clarified, the game wasn't really part of the series; it was basically a game with a similar premise with license to the name.
And you're right: the LSL were never really that racy, except for the humor. I don't think there was even any nudity in the first two, although they did gradually add more and more as the series progressed. Of course, I stumbled upon those games in my uncle's collection when I was, like, 9, so even those VGA, pink-circles-with-a-darker-dot-in-the-middle boobies were glorious to me; playing the games now, I still think they're pretty fun.
This is a way to make a child pick something, get burnt out on it and burnt out the rest of the time they are institutionalized there.
You're absolutely right. I started working in local PC shops as a tech when I was 13; I slowly worked my way up to being a systems architect after high school. Now, at 21, I'm so incredibly tired of dealing with technology that I want to do something else. Even in a field as broad and ever-changing as technology, you can feel the burn-out if it's all you've ever done. Granted, I'm successful by most metrics and I'm good at what I do, but I'm also left with a strong desire to pursue something else (physics or biology), but I feel too entrenched in IT to make the change.
Another point worth making is this: along with all the kids that don't know what they want to be, there are plenty of kids who simply don't want to be anything at that age. I know that all throughout high school, I had no motivation or aspiration to go out and join the "corporate rat race" and follow the traditional path through life. If I had to decide on a career path back then, I would've chosen "hobo".
Sir, I meant you no disrespect; indeed, "Rumsfeld" is not amongst even the scant few utterances I reserve for those who have personally wronged me. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and offer to eat my hat as reconciliation.
Because both (can) have system-level implications.
File associations can be maliciously modified to exploit security vulnerabilities. Print drivers can be kernel-mode, giving "arbitrary" code low-level access.
Grrr... I just wanted to make a flippant comment for a "funny mod" and now you've engaged me...
I do not support Microsoft's business actions-- past, present, and probably future. But the last line of your post actually made me laugh; you think with an open-source platform and applications, people will spend less time "mucking" with their machines? Really? I'm not going to spout anecdotal evidence that I have to the contrary, but I think even the most rabid zealots would agree that by its very nature, OSS requires much more mucking than a closed platform.
I actually agree with the OP sentiment that if F/OSS wants even a fighting chance at gaining market share (beyond Firefox, and maybe OO.org), they need a marketing department, and a damned good one. I think that the distros and some of the applications have come a really long way in terms of user-friendliness and general aesthetic appeal, but I also think they've got a long way to go. Foremost, stop giving your software these goofy-shit names that no one will ever take seriously. Second, try something truly innovative, instead of using the guise of user-familiarity to copy what Microsoft "blatantly ripped off" of Apple, who "creative acquired" off of [etc. etc.]. Third and perhaps most important, stop demonizing everyone who doesn't wave your flag; closed software is not the Great Satan, it does not conspire to eat your babies in the night, and it doesn't hate freedom. For a movement that's all about choice, there certainly seems to be an intolerance of anyone who chooses the "wrong" choice.
(Sigh). Air is not a product; yes, it is technically a product of naturally-occurring chemical reactions, but I didn't realize the Semantic Police were out in full force. What I meant by "unless the product is EXPLICITLY..." was: a product derived from the effort-- either physical or mental or a combination thereof-- of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and not with the sole intent of self-consumption. Do I also need to define what "is" is ?:-P
It's not a circular argument either: every thing is what it is because "we" define it to be so. A group of people who collectively define things a certain way is typically referred to as a society. In American/Western/capitalistic society, stealing is taking or consuming a product without the permission of the producer/owner.
And even if you wanted to argue it the other way, fine: A movie has an explicit price attached, either to the theater admission ticket, or the price of the DVD. I won't assume that your argument is so metaphysical that you're saying that the approximation of digital data stored on the DVD (e.g. the "rip") doesn't have an explicit price and is therefore not subject to the agreement, because if that is your argument, it's absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not going to argue semantics about this. In fact, I'm not going to argue it at all anymore; I'm pretty sure I won't change your (or anyone else's) mind, and I'm almost certain that you don't have a compelling argument for me, either.
Sure there is. The agreement is to consume the product of the movie studio in one of the formats they choose (at the theater, DVD, etc.) at the price they set. And as their actions have made clear, the agreement also includes NOT consuming their product through piracy. Just because modern technology makes it trivially easy to bypass this agreement doesn't negate the fact that the agreement exists.
This agreement is, of course, implicit, but it is the basic tenet of a capitalistic-- or, indeed, any barter-based-- society; unless the product is EXPLICITLY provided free of charge, you are assumed to have to pay for it. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of capitalism, but you cannot honestly contend that there is no agreement in the movie situation.
No, you haven't been baited, and no, I haven't seen the points debunked ever... especially not here.
You mention that it's just copying data, which is the only point I've really seen parroted by slashdotters. Yes, I have conceded that you are not taking a physical object of definite mass and shape. But you argue that entertainment (I'll let this encompass music and movies) is merely consumed, rather than providing the service of entertaining you. I know it may seem like semantics, but let me attempt an analogy here.
You say that cleaning your house is a service. So let's pretend that a certain company possesses the ability to build house-cleaning robots. These robots do not require any external power, never break down, and cost pennies to make, but designing them cost $80 million; so there is an initial creation cost, but no operation costs. And let's say that the company literally has an infinite supply of these; whether people are using them or not, they are continually building them. So this company rents out these robots at a given price, but you think the price is too high for the service. Ultimately, though, you want your house cleaned and decide to rent a robot. Afterwards, you refuse to pay, claiming that the robots cost nothing to operate, and there is an endless supply of them, so nothing has really been "stolen" here.
It pretty much goes the same for a movie. Large upfront cost, minimal distribution cost, and on whatever medium the movie is presented to you (physical disc or information in the aether), it provides you with the service of entertainment for the duration of the movie (plus every time you re-watch it). So how are the two scenarios different? Would you make the aforementioned argument with the robot company?
it is simply copying some data -- if it were being taken, the person that you were downloading from would no longer have it after you downloaded it.
Just to be clear, I understand the concept that copying something does not reduce or remove the original quantity, but you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that you're taking property from the person you're downloading from; I'm saying that you are using a service provided by the entertainment creator without paying them... That is where the actual theft occurs, not in the copying of the data.
And honestly, I can already see someone saying that my analogy is flawed and claiming that it's more like your neighbor renting the robot, and you come over and reverse-engineer it and build your own identical robot and leave the original intact. But that's the wrong interpretation, and if that's how you see it, you still have missed my point entirely.
By my second post in any discussion where I'm defending the perceived "bad guy" (Microsoft, MAFIAA, etc.), I like to point out that I'm not a shill, I just think that sometimes the "bad guys" aren't really as bad as people want them to be.
and your escalation of "copyright infringement" to "theft" just makes it more laughable
It is the theft of a service. Just because you're copying digital bits instead of stealing a physical disc does not mean the nature of the crime has changed.
The service is entertaining your mooch ass for two hours; How does this point evade all the "copyright infringement" people? Yes, it is important to use specific language to prevent the downfall of Western civilization (only a slight exaggeration of an argument previously posted on/.), but it's not an "escalation" of copyright infringement, it is using a non-specific synonym. You are taking the property (intellectual or physical) of someone else against their wishes; that is theft.
And please don't argue that "copyright infringement" is intended to fight the grave injustice and immoral act of movie/music studios demanding compensation for their products. I mean, clearly this piracy is as noble as being a part of the Underground Railroad or the NWSA...
That said, the tactics of MediaDefender and the MPAA (if they were involved, which I don't doubt) are absurd and just plain wrong. I think the whole "two wrongs" saying would be appropriate here.
The science used to determine the age of the earth does nothing to make my car or TV work
First of all, YES IT IS the same science. It is the science of atoms at subatomic particles that determines both the age of the matter in the universe, and that determines the properties of photons and how to harness them to create televisions. It is also the study of atoms and molecules that leads to combustion engines and electric vehicles and virtually all other mechanics.
And in a larger sense, all science is the same science. Science is the quest for truth, for understanding the world around us. It is the advancement of knowledge based on our limited sensory abilities and profound logical/rational capabilities. It is the very thing that makes us human. All progress comes from science, not from prayer or divine intervention.
I don't hate people for their beliefs, and I don't really look down on them, either. I may feel disheartened that some people devote their entire lives to the words of a book with no credibility; that they forfeit so many of life's wonders and experiences because someone tells them that suffering in this life leads to reward in the unproven next. But what I do hate is when people force their beliefs/morality on me and everyone else because their beliefs say that they are absolutely, 100% correct, and that they are obligated to do so. That is what breeds hatred for the religious (at least from a live-and-let-live agnostic like me). I don't believe I'm right; I don't think I have some ultimate, "unknowable-by-its-very-nature" truth of the universe and that everyone around me is a fool for not believing the same thing (or better yet, that they're damned to some eternal hell for it). And again, I don't have any problem with faith. But when that faith encroaches into the realm of reality, and when it wins over reality, that's where I have a problem.
The fact that they're talking like this at all suggests they're scared about "the other choice."
This is so stupid. Perhaps the fact that they're talking like this suggests that they are the current "market leaders" in technology standards (Windows for the OS, iPod for digital media). Besides, as TFA states a whopping paragraph in, they didn't organize this; they were both invited to speak at this third-party conference. Neither one is scared of anything. If Apple or Linux encroach more than 15% of the OS market, Microsoft may start to notice; if the Zune encroaches more than 10% (*snicker*) of the media player market, Apple may start to notice. And if Linux takes over 15% of the embedded market, both may start to notice. Until then, I suspect that neither company is really scared of much.
I personally think Linux is great... for what it is. But I am not convinced that it will ever be seen as a real contender unless it makes some drastic changes to its very model; changes that would essentially destroy the appeal of F/OSS. And statements like "they're scared about the 'other choice' just sound absolutely ridiculous to me, especially in the context of this article.
See, the problem is that here in the U.S., we're not accustomed to metric measurements and notation. Megabits, kilobytes, these things mean nothing to us.
Therefore, I propose the U.S. instate a new standard of measurement in accordance with our SI units. There will be 3 bits in a byte, 5,280 bits in a kilobyte, and 43,560 square bits (or 4,840 square bytes) in a megabyte. I think we can all agree that this is much more logical.
When I upgrade my work computer it will be to Ubuntu and my gameing rig to an DS and PSP duct taped together back to back.
For whatever reason, that last part made me think of Sidetalkin'... specifically, this image (harmless link, just re-hosted out of respect to the Sidetalkin' site).
I don't believe that at all. I believe that there are more than enough people in the world with intent of malice to qualify as being "not good". Of course, this is all subjective and depends on your (and the person in question's) definition of "good" and "bad" and et cetera, but I don't think that detracts much from the argument.
My real reason for posting is to ask you how a belief in quantum mechanics affects your opinion. So without further ado, "How does a belief in quantum mechanics affect your opinion regarding human 'nature'?":-)
Slashdot Mirror
... Damn it. I kept putting off replying to your post and 'fessing my mistake, but I guess I should.
For whatever reason, when I read the original post, I mentally supplanted "universal physics" for "mathematics". I mean, they look so similar...
At any rate, you are absolutely correct; mathematics is a conceptual abstraction that is-- more or less-- arbitrary.
What in the observable universe is tied to the world outside the simulation? I think that's precisely the point: we cannot readily conceive a universe in which even our laws of mathematics don't apply, because we have no frame of reference for such a thing. We may not be an accurate simulation of the outside world; perhaps we're one of many concurrent simulations in which one slight "universal" variable has been changed, for the simulators to observe the results.
Questions like this are ultimately "god" questions, and being an agnostic, I think they reside firmly in the realm of philosophy, not science.
Everything you wanted to say on /. for years is a non-sequitur?
Clue, rabid FOSS supporters: open in not the opposite of evil. Yes, open systems are less able to be evil, but that does not make them opposites.
"They were no DVD-Rs or Bluetooth, but there were LCD screens?"
"Dude, I got a lot of tables..."
What? Didn't you ever pay attention to the lyrics? The whole song is ABOUT sex and violence.
/Ouch, something is poking the inside of my cheek
Just to clarify: What the Wiki mentions is a just reference to the older game (which never actually existed, anyway)... there's nothing interactive. And as the OP clarified, the game wasn't really part of the series; it was basically a game with a similar premise with license to the name.
And you're right: the LSL were never really that racy, except for the humor. I don't think there was even any nudity in the first two, although they did gradually add more and more as the series progressed. Of course, I stumbled upon those games in my uncle's collection when I was, like, 9, so even those VGA, pink-circles-with-a-darker-dot-in-the-middle boobies were glorious to me; playing the games now, I still think they're pretty fun.
You're absolutely right. I started working in local PC shops as a tech when I was 13; I slowly worked my way up to being a systems architect after high school. Now, at 21, I'm so incredibly tired of dealing with technology that I want to do something else. Even in a field as broad and ever-changing as technology, you can feel the burn-out if it's all you've ever done. Granted, I'm successful by most metrics and I'm good at what I do, but I'm also left with a strong desire to pursue something else (physics or biology), but I feel too entrenched in IT to make the change.
Another point worth making is this: along with all the kids that don't know what they want to be, there are plenty of kids who simply don't want to be anything at that age. I know that all throughout high school, I had no motivation or aspiration to go out and join the "corporate rat race" and follow the traditional path through life. If I had to decide on a career path back then, I would've chosen "hobo".
Sir, I meant you no disrespect; indeed, "Rumsfeld" is not amongst even the scant few utterances I reserve for those who have personally wronged me. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and offer to eat my hat as reconciliation.
Woah, careful there; you're starting to sound like Rumsfeld.
Because both (can) have system-level implications.
File associations can be maliciously modified to exploit security vulnerabilities. Print drivers can be kernel-mode, giving "arbitrary" code low-level access.
Well, that's easy: East Bumfuckistan isn't coastal. You're thinking of West Bumfuckistan.
Grrr... I just wanted to make a flippant comment for a "funny mod" and now you've engaged me...
I do not support Microsoft's business actions-- past, present, and probably future. But the last line of your post actually made me laugh; you think with an open-source platform and applications, people will spend less time "mucking" with their machines? Really? I'm not going to spout anecdotal evidence that I have to the contrary, but I think even the most rabid zealots would agree that by its very nature, OSS requires much more mucking than a closed platform.
I actually agree with the OP sentiment that if F/OSS wants even a fighting chance at gaining market share (beyond Firefox, and maybe OO.org), they need a marketing department, and a damned good one. I think that the distros and some of the applications have come a really long way in terms of user-friendliness and general aesthetic appeal, but I also think they've got a long way to go. Foremost, stop giving your software these goofy-shit names that no one will ever take seriously. Second, try something truly innovative, instead of using the guise of user-familiarity to copy what Microsoft "blatantly ripped off" of Apple, who "creative acquired" off of [etc. etc.]. Third and perhaps most important, stop demonizing everyone who doesn't wave your flag; closed software is not the Great Satan, it does not conspire to eat your babies in the night, and it doesn't hate freedom. For a movement that's all about choice, there certainly seems to be an intolerance of anyone who chooses the "wrong" choice.
/end rant
//damn these slashies are addictive
Clue #1: Don't call them that.
/Currently mouthbreathing
//Damn allergies
Even if the government knows what it stands for, they'll still probably cut off funding for it. (Sigh)
(Sigh). Air is not a product; yes, it is technically a product of naturally-occurring chemical reactions, but I didn't realize the Semantic Police were out in full force. What I meant by "unless the product is EXPLICITLY..." was: a product derived from the effort-- either physical or mental or a combination thereof-- of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and not with the sole intent of self-consumption. Do I also need to define what "is" is ? :-P
It's not a circular argument either: every thing is what it is because "we" define it to be so. A group of people who collectively define things a certain way is typically referred to as a society. In American/Western/capitalistic society, stealing is taking or consuming a product without the permission of the producer/owner.
And even if you wanted to argue it the other way, fine: A movie has an explicit price attached, either to the theater admission ticket, or the price of the DVD. I won't assume that your argument is so metaphysical that you're saying that the approximation of digital data stored on the DVD (e.g. the "rip") doesn't have an explicit price and is therefore not subject to the agreement, because if that is your argument, it's absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not going to argue semantics about this. In fact, I'm not going to argue it at all anymore; I'm pretty sure I won't change your (or anyone else's) mind, and I'm almost certain that you don't have a compelling argument for me, either.
Sure there is. The agreement is to consume the product of the movie studio in one of the formats they choose (at the theater, DVD, etc.) at the price they set. And as their actions have made clear, the agreement also includes NOT consuming their product through piracy. Just because modern technology makes it trivially easy to bypass this agreement doesn't negate the fact that the agreement exists.
This agreement is, of course, implicit, but it is the basic tenet of a capitalistic-- or, indeed, any barter-based-- society; unless the product is EXPLICITLY provided free of charge, you are assumed to have to pay for it. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of capitalism, but you cannot honestly contend that there is no agreement in the movie situation.
No, you haven't been baited, and no, I haven't seen the points debunked ever... especially not here.
You mention that it's just copying data, which is the only point I've really seen parroted by slashdotters. Yes, I have conceded that you are not taking a physical object of definite mass and shape. But you argue that entertainment (I'll let this encompass music and movies) is merely consumed, rather than providing the service of entertaining you. I know it may seem like semantics, but let me attempt an analogy here.
You say that cleaning your house is a service. So let's pretend that a certain company possesses the ability to build house-cleaning robots. These robots do not require any external power, never break down, and cost pennies to make, but designing them cost $80 million; so there is an initial creation cost, but no operation costs. And let's say that the company literally has an infinite supply of these; whether people are using them or not, they are continually building them. So this company rents out these robots at a given price, but you think the price is too high for the service. Ultimately, though, you want your house cleaned and decide to rent a robot. Afterwards, you refuse to pay, claiming that the robots cost nothing to operate, and there is an endless supply of them, so nothing has really been "stolen" here.
It pretty much goes the same for a movie. Large upfront cost, minimal distribution cost, and on whatever medium the movie is presented to you (physical disc or information in the aether), it provides you with the service of entertainment for the duration of the movie (plus every time you re-watch it). So how are the two scenarios different? Would you make the aforementioned argument with the robot company?
Just to be clear, I understand the concept that copying something does not reduce or remove the original quantity, but you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that you're taking property from the person you're downloading from; I'm saying that you are using a service provided by the entertainment creator without paying them... That is where the actual theft occurs, not in the copying of the data.
And honestly, I can already see someone saying that my analogy is flawed and claiming that it's more like your neighbor renting the robot, and you come over and reverse-engineer it and build your own identical robot and leave the original intact. But that's the wrong interpretation, and if that's how you see it, you still have missed my point entirely.
By my second post in any discussion where I'm defending the perceived "bad guy" (Microsoft, MAFIAA, etc.), I like to point out that I'm not a shill, I just think that sometimes the "bad guys" aren't really as bad as people want them to be.
It is the theft of a service. Just because you're copying digital bits instead of stealing a physical disc does not mean the nature of the crime has changed.
The service is entertaining your mooch ass for two hours; How does this point evade all the "copyright infringement" people? Yes, it is important to use specific language to prevent the downfall of Western civilization (only a slight exaggeration of an argument previously posted on /.), but it's not an "escalation" of copyright infringement, it is using a non-specific synonym. You are taking the property (intellectual or physical) of someone else against their wishes; that is theft.
And please don't argue that "copyright infringement" is intended to fight the grave injustice and immoral act of movie/music studios demanding compensation for their products. I mean, clearly this piracy is as noble as being a part of the Underground Railroad or the NWSA...
That said, the tactics of MediaDefender and the MPAA (if they were involved, which I don't doubt) are absurd and just plain wrong. I think the whole "two wrongs" saying would be appropriate here.
(Sigh) Twice.
/American
/But I voted for Kodos
Alright, I'll jump in here.
First of all, YES IT IS the same science. It is the science of atoms at subatomic particles that determines both the age of the matter in the universe, and that determines the properties of photons and how to harness them to create televisions. It is also the study of atoms and molecules that leads to combustion engines and electric vehicles and virtually all other mechanics.
And in a larger sense, all science is the same science. Science is the quest for truth, for understanding the world around us. It is the advancement of knowledge based on our limited sensory abilities and profound logical/rational capabilities. It is the very thing that makes us human. All progress comes from science, not from prayer or divine intervention.
I don't hate people for their beliefs, and I don't really look down on them, either. I may feel disheartened that some people devote their entire lives to the words of a book with no credibility; that they forfeit so many of life's wonders and experiences because someone tells them that suffering in this life leads to reward in the unproven next. But what I do hate is when people force their beliefs/morality on me and everyone else because their beliefs say that they are absolutely, 100% correct, and that they are obligated to do so. That is what breeds hatred for the religious (at least from a live-and-let-live agnostic like me). I don't believe I'm right; I don't think I have some ultimate, "unknowable-by-its-very-nature" truth of the universe and that everyone around me is a fool for not believing the same thing (or better yet, that they're damned to some eternal hell for it). And again, I don't have any problem with faith. But when that faith encroaches into the realm of reality, and when it wins over reality, that's where I have a problem.
This is so stupid. Perhaps the fact that they're talking like this suggests that they are the current "market leaders" in technology standards (Windows for the OS, iPod for digital media). Besides, as TFA states a whopping paragraph in, they didn't organize this; they were both invited to speak at this third-party conference. Neither one is scared of anything. If Apple or Linux encroach more than 15% of the OS market, Microsoft may start to notice; if the Zune encroaches more than 10% (*snicker*) of the media player market, Apple may start to notice. And if Linux takes over 15% of the embedded market, both may start to notice. Until then, I suspect that neither company is really scared of much.
I personally think Linux is great... for what it is. But I am not convinced that it will ever be seen as a real contender unless it makes some drastic changes to its very model; changes that would essentially destroy the appeal of F/OSS. And statements like "they're scared about the 'other choice' just sound absolutely ridiculous to me, especially in the context of this article.
I opt out of mod points, but someone mod this douchebag down. The "quote" contains a spoiler for something.
See, the problem is that here in the U.S., we're not accustomed to metric measurements and notation. Megabits, kilobytes, these things mean nothing to us.
Therefore, I propose the U.S. instate a new standard of measurement in accordance with our SI units. There will be 3 bits in a byte, 5,280 bits in a kilobyte, and 43,560 square bits (or 4,840 square bytes) in a megabyte. I think we can all agree that this is much more logical.
(Sigh)
/Sorry, rest of the world
For whatever reason, that last part made me think of Sidetalkin'... specifically, this image (harmless link, just re-hosted out of respect to the Sidetalkin' site).
I don't believe that at all. I believe that there are more than enough people in the world with intent of malice to qualify as being "not good". Of course, this is all subjective and depends on your (and the person in question's) definition of "good" and "bad" and et cetera, but I don't think that detracts much from the argument.
My real reason for posting is to ask you how a belief in quantum mechanics affects your opinion. So without further ado, "How does a belief in quantum mechanics affect your opinion regarding human 'nature'?" :-)