"natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal"
Where "normal" is defined as "what it was 10 years ago". I wonder if the descendants of Ice Age megafauna are wondering when the climate will return to their normal.
And then you have less research being done, and therefore less chance of success, because only those companies with enough capital to work without pay for years on end can actually participate.
I dunno, I think a lot of prosthetic limbs are themselves powered, and require a battery for their own operations. I imagine the whole weight/cost/longevity issue has probably already been optimised around the arm's own function.
but most people seem to ignore copyright even on very recent works (last 6 months).
And that's because of bad copyright laws. When someone is faced with a bad law, it brings the whole system into disrepute, not just that law. If the system is rife with bad laws, then nobody cares about any of them, even those few laws that may actually be useful. Such a system inevitably leads to either totalitarianism (where unjust laws are enforced so harshly as to ensure obedience via threat rather than morality) or anarchy (where all laws are flouted to such a degree that enforcement is infeasible).
The only solution is to strip away the unjust laws, and give people a legal system they can respect again. This whole discussion brings to mind one of my favourite quotes:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
It is a good thing. "Common sense rulings" - that is, rulings which vague and non-specific - are a bad thing, and ripe for abuse, just like laws with the same qualities.
Yeah, I wasn't defending the DMCA, I was just stating that, even under the DMCA, fair use should have meant this work popped back up again. Of course, that opens the creator up to a legal suit, but that would have been the case even without the DMCA.
As I understand it, if someone complains about your work under the DMCA, the hosting provider is supposed to forward the complaint to you, and immediately pull your work. If you respond to the DMCA asserting you have the rights to the work (for whatever reason, including fair use), the host is supposed to put it back up, and let you and the complainant duke it out in court.
Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.
They're not "supposed to be" anything. In fact, if you try and put them in a box, a certain subset will go out and do the opposite just to demonstrate that you can't, in fact, predict their actions.
Actually, it's the interpretation of a highy-symbolic passage in the holy text of a major religion by a certain subset of believers. Nobody outside of America interprets it that way (nor the whole "rapture" thing either).
I really don't get this sudden surge of amazement regarding Facebook's tracking.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of http knows that for every request, your browser automatically sends cookie data. And that when you request an image, your request gets logged against the server that hosts that image.
Hell, doubleclick was doing the same thing a decade ago, and you didn't even have to sign up for them to track you.
It's also not like the user isn't given a choice - I remember when browser's used to ask you to confirm whether you wanted to allow a cookie to be set. It seems that the default setting is now "allow all", presumably because that's what users found most convenient. Well, there's a reason you were initially asked to confirm a site's request to set a cookie - it gave you control.
All these people bitching about "non-opt in" tracking have had the mechanism to "opt-out" of such tracking sitting in their browser the whole time. Delete the damn cookie, and get your browser to prompt you when a site asks you to set a cookie. If that's too much effort, well, you've made your own decision about where you lie on the convenience-control line.
Well, deconstruct it then. It would be valuable to first read my argument, because looking at the rest of your post, it looks like you're inferring it from your own preconceptions rather than actually attempting to comprehend what I wrote.
why you would propose a ludicrous "theory" with no explanatory power
Actually, I haven't proposed, nor endorsed, a theory at all in this thread.
Why? What possibly impact do my beliefs have on my argument? If my argument is logical, it should stand on its own, regardless of what I believe. Contrariwise if it doesn't.
For someone whose accusing others of changing the topic, you're fairly insistent at changing it away from the topic at hand, to my beliefs.
Have you ever had this discussion with a *real* believer in ID?
And now you're creating a false dichotomy with an artificial distinction of a "real" believer, who behaves in all the ways you want to condemn. Have you ever had this dicussion with a *true* Scotsman?
"Irreducibly complex" is a red herring invented by ID to mean "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it"
You most definitely said something about it.
"An eye without a lens or without rods and cones would be useless, thus God Must Exist (and designed us)." is a misrepresentation, and a fairly obviously facetious one at that. The argument would more properly run "An eye without a lens or without rods and cones would be useless, thus it could not have evolved one component at a time, thus there must be another mechanism for its existence." Even if irreducible complexity were demonstrated by the evidence, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of God, or the lack thereof.
I'm stating that I've had ID preached to me in that manner, and I believe it to be illogical (as you apparently do as well), like all arguements ever made for ID.
You made no such qualifications in your original post - nothing about how it was "preached" to you, or "in your experience", or "you believe". You made flat-out assertions. You also make a sweeping generalization about every argument ever, which is also quite unscientific.
You don't listen to the facts, but use slight of hand to try to frame the discussion into an argument you think you'll win
You reframed irreducible complexity as "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it", then proceeded to demolish the strawman you'd just constructred, before claiming victory in the name of logic and science. I think someone in this conversation is guilty of what you say, but it's not me.
You seem like a proponent of ID.
And you seem like a "new atheist" Dawkins-worshipper - preferring to vilify your opponents with rhetoric rather than actually debate them.
"Irreducibly complex" is a red herring invented by ID to mean "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it" which is provably false, as our understanding continually expands.
I see you don't understand the concept of irreducible complexity at all. Most of the structures that are claimed as irreducibly complex are well understood. The idea is that if you can find a structure in which certain formations couldn't have developed without the present of other formations which also relied on the first, then you've identified a structure which couldn't have plausibly evolved - it's like finding a circular dependency, and it is a logical argument.
Of course, the fact is that we've been able to determine plausible evolutionary paths for all the formations suggested as irreducibly complex, so the irreducible complexity argument doesn't support ID, but that doesn't mean that the argument itself is illogical - just that there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.
If you look at a candidate for irreducible and complexity, and respond with "well we just don't know how it evolved yet", then you are begging the question, and it is you being illogical.
That's exactly what I wouldn't want, and not what the OP asked for. He didn't ask to have to click "allow/deny" with every action an app took, he asked to be able to deny permissions at install time on an individual basis, instead of an "all or nothing" one.
I dunno; I quite enjoyed them both. However, I found that Dungeon Master's progression mechanic was basically a grind, and abusable. I also hated that running into walls did damage, and the hunger-rate made exploration prohibitive. Personally, I preferred Bloodwych (for the multiplayer fun) and Black Crypt (for the boss and item mechanics).
And our current system is a cultural tyranny in which those who own publishing houses control what is made and produced, and make sure that it's to their tastes rather than the creator's vision, etc etc.
Opening up the system to a distributed patronage method in the mode of kickstarter actually gives the widest range of people the ability to control the production of art.
Slashdot Mirror
"natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal"
Where "normal" is defined as "what it was 10 years ago". I wonder if the descendants of Ice Age megafauna are wondering when the climate will return to their normal.
And then you have less research being done, and therefore less chance of success, because only those companies with enough capital to work without pay for years on end can actually participate.
I dunno, I think a lot of prosthetic limbs are themselves powered, and require a battery for their own operations. I imagine the whole weight/cost/longevity issue has probably already been optimised around the arm's own function.
but most people seem to ignore copyright even on very recent works (last 6 months).
And that's because of bad copyright laws. When someone is faced with a bad law, it brings the whole system into disrepute, not just that law. If the system is rife with bad laws, then nobody cares about any of them, even those few laws that may actually be useful. Such a system inevitably leads to either totalitarianism (where unjust laws are enforced so harshly as to ensure obedience via threat rather than morality) or anarchy (where all laws are flouted to such a degree that enforcement is infeasible).
The only solution is to strip away the unjust laws, and give people a legal system they can respect again. This whole discussion brings to mind one of my favourite quotes:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
-- James Madison
It is a good thing. "Common sense rulings" - that is, rulings which vague and non-specific - are a bad thing, and ripe for abuse, just like laws with the same qualities.
Newsflash: "suppress" isn't a synonym for "not delivered to your door in the morning paper"
Yeah, I wasn't defending the DMCA, I was just stating that, even under the DMCA, fair use should have meant this work popped back up again. Of course, that opens the creator up to a legal suit, but that would have been the case even without the DMCA.
Or if you're responding to a DMCA notice.
As I understand it, if someone complains about your work under the DMCA, the hosting provider is supposed to forward the complaint to you, and immediately pull your work. If you respond to the DMCA asserting you have the rights to the work (for whatever reason, including fair use), the host is supposed to put it back up, and let you and the complainant duke it out in court.
Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.
They're not "supposed to be" anything. In fact, if you try and put them in a box, a certain subset will go out and do the opposite just to demonstrate that you can't, in fact, predict their actions.
Actually, it's the interpretation of a highy-symbolic passage in the holy text of a major religion by a certain subset of believers. Nobody outside of America interprets it that way (nor the whole "rapture" thing either).
I don't know what the equivalent is in the US, but in Australia, that'd be the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages - which has public access.
Unless you're using a Model M, in which case 3 miles is the maximum viable distance.
No more stranger than one, two three, four, five, fi or e.
I really don't get this sudden surge of amazement regarding Facebook's tracking.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of http knows that for every request, your browser automatically sends cookie data. And that when you request an image, your request gets logged against the server that hosts that image.
Hell, doubleclick was doing the same thing a decade ago, and you didn't even have to sign up for them to track you.
It's also not like the user isn't given a choice - I remember when browser's used to ask you to confirm whether you wanted to allow a cookie to be set. It seems that the default setting is now "allow all", presumably because that's what users found most convenient. Well, there's a reason you were initially asked to confirm a site's request to set a cookie - it gave you control.
All these people bitching about "non-opt in" tracking have had the mechanism to "opt-out" of such tracking sitting in their browser the whole time. Delete the damn cookie, and get your browser to prompt you when a site asks you to set a cookie. If that's too much effort, well, you've made your own decision about where you lie on the convenience-control line.
Your argument doesn't stand on it's own.
Well, deconstruct it then. It would be valuable to first read my argument, because looking at the rest of your post, it looks like you're inferring it from your own preconceptions rather than actually attempting to comprehend what I wrote.
why you would propose a ludicrous "theory" with no explanatory power
Actually, I haven't proposed, nor endorsed, a theory at all in this thread.
Why? What possibly impact do my beliefs have on my argument? If my argument is logical, it should stand on its own, regardless of what I believe. Contrariwise if it doesn't.
For someone whose accusing others of changing the topic, you're fairly insistent at changing it away from the topic at hand, to my beliefs.
Have you ever had this discussion with a *real* believer in ID?
And now you're creating a false dichotomy with an artificial distinction of a "real" believer, who behaves in all the ways you want to condemn. Have you ever had this dicussion with a *true* Scotsman?
Given that I said nothing about it
"Irreducibly complex" is a red herring invented by ID to mean "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it"
You most definitely said something about it.
"An eye without a lens or without rods and cones would be useless, thus God Must Exist (and designed us)." is a misrepresentation, and a fairly obviously facetious one at that. The argument would more properly run "An eye without a lens or without rods and cones would be useless, thus it could not have evolved one component at a time, thus there must be another mechanism for its existence." Even if irreducible complexity were demonstrated by the evidence, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of God, or the lack thereof.
I'm stating that I've had ID preached to me in that manner, and I believe it to be illogical (as you apparently do as well), like all arguements ever made for ID.
You made no such qualifications in your original post - nothing about how it was "preached" to you, or "in your experience", or "you believe". You made flat-out assertions. You also make a sweeping generalization about every argument ever, which is also quite unscientific.
You don't listen to the facts, but use slight of hand to try to frame the discussion into an argument you think you'll win
You reframed irreducible complexity as "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it", then proceeded to demolish the strawman you'd just constructred, before claiming victory in the name of logic and science. I think someone in this conversation is guilty of what you say, but it's not me.
You seem like a proponent of ID.
And you seem like a "new atheist" Dawkins-worshipper - preferring to vilify your opponents with rhetoric rather than actually debate them.
"Irreducibly complex" is a red herring invented by ID to mean "we don't understand it, which is proof we can never understand it" which is provably false, as our understanding continually expands.
I see you don't understand the concept of irreducible complexity at all. Most of the structures that are claimed as irreducibly complex are well understood. The idea is that if you can find a structure in which certain formations couldn't have developed without the present of other formations which also relied on the first, then you've identified a structure which couldn't have plausibly evolved - it's like finding a circular dependency, and it is a logical argument.
Of course, the fact is that we've been able to determine plausible evolutionary paths for all the formations suggested as irreducibly complex, so the irreducible complexity argument doesn't support ID, but that doesn't mean that the argument itself is illogical - just that there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.
If you look at a candidate for irreducible and complexity, and respond with "well we just don't know how it evolved yet", then you are begging the question, and it is you being illogical.
That's exactly what I wouldn't want, and not what the OP asked for. He didn't ask to have to click "allow/deny" with every action an app took, he asked to be able to deny permissions at install time on an individual basis, instead of an "all or nothing" one.
I dunno; I quite enjoyed them both. However, I found that Dungeon Master's progression mechanic was basically a grind, and abusable. I also hated that running into walls did damage, and the hunger-rate made exploration prohibitive. Personally, I preferred Bloodwych (for the multiplayer fun) and Black Crypt (for the boss and item mechanics).
Protecting inefficient industries simply delays the inevitable whilst giving those in said industries free reign over pricing in local markets
Where "efficient" generally means outsourcing to a country with lax labour and human rights enforcement.
And our current system is a cultural tyranny in which those who own publishing houses control what is made and produced, and make sure that it's to their tastes rather than the creator's vision, etc etc.
Opening up the system to a distributed patronage method in the mode of kickstarter actually gives the widest range of people the ability to control the production of art.
firing swathes of employees
Yes, that is what's known to people like the OP as "managing the bottom line"
As a matter of fact, he did. If people enough stands for it, so it will be. It's what happens on a democracy.
So, given that this isn't happening, the current state of affairs is perfectly acceptable, and no argument is necessary. Sweet.