About 100% of all physicists believe the current models are incomplete. That's why there's so much research in quantum gravity. And dark matter wasn't accepted just after it was introduced. It was accepted because it explained many different unrelated observations, and there's no other model with the same predictive power.
It is one thing to pirate content, it is another to make money from pirated content.
They didn't make money from pirated content (unless they pirated the p2p client). They made money from providing a tool which enables file sharing, which by itself is not illegal. It's only illegal if you don't have the necessary licenses for the files you share.
Basically, it's the same as being punished for distributing Usenet clients because many people use Usenet for illegally distributing copyrighted files. Or being punished for distributing web browsers because they are used to download copyrighted material over the web.
"He went on to suggest that any website offering the software alongside advertising (i.e, trying to profit from offering it) would be committing a crime, punishable by between two and four years in jail." So the web site has to be put in jail? Does that mean those tools may only be provided from BSD web servers?
Exactly what I was thinking. The group of people who "find manuals 'difficult to read and understand'" are not a target for software-based training methods -- at least, not outside grade school -- they are a target for replacement with software altogether.
AFAIK we still don't have an AI which can read and understand manuals.
well actually it doesn't seem to be if you think about it.
i would say that for an idea to have any usefulness in terms of science, it ought to be able to stand up to itself.
I think the claim that the way of falsification is the best way to determine the truth is indeed falsifiable.
An experiment could be as follows:
You set up a truth to discover (say, in form of a computer game where you have to find out how some in-game machinery works). Now you get people to find out the truth, either with the method of falsification, or with some other method to be tested against it. If the other method consistently turns up to be more effective, then falsification as best method to find the truth is falsified.
Noscript will not be helpful against malware exploiting bugs in displaying code (png library, video codec,...). And don't say that won'teverhappen. And yes, in principle you can block that, but I guess if you block all videos and images, you might as well just not surf the porn site anyway (or maybe there are ASCII porn pages somewhere?).
But there exist algorithms which can tell you either "this program halts!" "this program doesn't halt!" or "Oops, this program is too complex for me to decide for certain that it halts!".
Indeed, such programs exist (I didn't say otherwise). For example:
if (program == "int main(){}")
printf("this program halts!"); else if (program == "int main(){for(;;);}")
printf("this program doesn't halt!"); else
printf("Oops, this program is too complex for me to decide for certain that it halts!");
This algorithm completely meets the specification, thus proving that such algorithms exist.
In some cases they can even be useful.
The useful ones are of course a bit more complex than my version.:-)
No algorithm can tell for every algorithm whether it will halt in finite time. That means for each testing algorithm there exists at least one program which doesn't halt, but the algorithm cannot tell that it doesn't halt. Now, an algorithm where your example is such an algorithm is certainly possible, but would obviously be a very poor testing algorithm.
Well, according to quantum mechanics, all we have to do is to measure something complementary to his dead-or-alive observable, and then look if he's still dead. Since measuring the complementary observable makes the value of the dead-or-alive observable completely undefined, there's a non-zero probability that he'll be found alive afterwards. The resurrection probability can be increased by just repeating the procedure often enough until he is found alive.
'It's shocking how little value criminals place on your credit card,' she said."
No, if it were worth more, there'd be more value in stealing it. You want its value to a criminal to be zero, the chance of being caught to be infinite, or both.
Actually a chance of 100% is absolutely sufficient.
Actually, if you could put dog shit in the gas tank and power the car with it, it would solve two problems at the same time: It would save oil, and dog shit wouldn't lie on the street any more (it would be far too valuable!).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it was not Linux that crashed on Wall Street.
Given how much advertising Windows gets, I wonder what your argument says about its quality ...
About 100% of all physicists believe the current models are incomplete. That's why there's so much research in quantum gravity. And dark matter wasn't accepted just after it was introduced. It was accepted because it explained many different unrelated observations, and there's no other model with the same predictive power.
Maybe the reviewers considered the experiment a bit fishy ...
and wonders what goes through the salmon's mind whilst doing so.
"I'm not dead yet!"
It was probably a salmon of doubt.
... which you didn't fake yourself.
But seriously, it happens not only in medicine. It also happens in physics. [pdf]
They didn't make money from pirated content (unless they pirated the p2p client). They made money from providing a tool which enables file sharing, which by itself is not illegal. It's only illegal if you don't have the necessary licenses for the files you share.
Basically, it's the same as being punished for distributing Usenet clients because many people use Usenet for illegally distributing copyrighted files. Or being punished for distributing web browsers because they are used to download copyrighted material over the web.
"He went on to suggest that any website offering the software alongside advertising (i.e, trying to profit from offering it) would be committing a crime, punishable by between two and four years in jail."
So the web site has to be put in jail? Does that mean those tools may only be provided from BSD web servers?
Exactly what I was thinking. The group of people who "find manuals 'difficult to read and understand'" are not a target for software-based training methods -- at least, not outside grade school -- they are a target for replacement with software altogether.
AFAIK we still don't have an AI which can read and understand manuals.
So how long until someone finds an exploit in your TV using specially crafted broadcasts?
We are virgin males who are into Computer Science. We are not into astronomy.
Who is "we"?
was poppers idea of falsification falsifiable..?
well actually it doesn't seem to be if you think about it.
i would say that for an idea to have any usefulness in terms of science, it ought to be able to stand up to itself.
I think the claim that the way of falsification is the best way to determine the truth is indeed falsifiable.
An experiment could be as follows:
You set up a truth to discover (say, in form of a computer game where you have to find out how some in-game machinery works). Now you get people to find out the truth, either with the method of falsification, or with some other method to be tested against it. If the other method consistently turns up to be more effective, then falsification as best method to find the truth is falsified.
Correction. I read the Ars article, and the trouble you can get into is regarding copyright violations that occur on your connection.
So all of my examples in the parent post should be modified to talk about copyright infringement as the illegal activity.
Easy:
s/kiddy porn/pirated kiddy porn/
s/botnet/botnet used for file sharing/
s/purchases/purchases of pirated material/
How do you know if his mouth works at all? If you cannot speak, an internet connection may be essential.
Noscript will not be helpful against malware exploiting bugs in displaying code (png library, video codec, ...). And don't say that won't ever happen. And yes, in principle you can block that, but I guess if you block all videos and images, you might as well just not surf the porn site anyway (or maybe there are ASCII porn pages somewhere?).
The Google mirror already exists for quite some time.
It won't kill you as long as no doctor examines you.
A Lada is not funny, not even if repeated four times!
An interpreter with a time limit cannot say "this program never halts."
Indeed, such programs exist (I didn't say otherwise). For example:
This algorithm completely meets the specification, thus proving that such algorithms exist.
The useful ones are of course a bit more complex than my version. :-)
No algorithm can tell for every algorithm whether it will halt in finite time. That means for each testing algorithm there exists at least one program which doesn't halt, but the algorithm cannot tell that it doesn't halt. Now, an algorithm where your example is such an algorithm is certainly possible, but would obviously be a very poor testing algorithm.
Well, according to quantum mechanics, all we have to do is to measure something complementary to his dead-or-alive observable, and then look if he's still dead. Since measuring the complementary observable makes the value of the dead-or-alive observable completely undefined, there's a non-zero probability that he'll be found alive afterwards. The resurrection probability can be increased by just repeating the procedure often enough until he is found alive.
'It's shocking how little value criminals place on your credit card,' she said."
No, if it were worth more, there'd be more value in stealing it. You want its value to a criminal to be zero, the chance of being caught to be infinite, or both.
Actually a chance of 100% is absolutely sufficient.
Actually, if you could put dog shit in the gas tank and power the car with it, it would solve two problems at the same time: It would save oil, and dog shit wouldn't lie on the street any more (it would be far too valuable!).