All I was pointing out is that mathematics hasn't been proven consistent, and more importantly, can't be because of Godel's proof. I'm not sure exactly this has to do with your description/explanation idea...
But I agree with you, mathematics doesn't explain anything, we can use it to model phenomena, but it's up to theorists to interpret the models, hence the distinction between quantum mechanics and quantum theory. I just don't get what it has to do with whether or not mathematics is consistent.
You're talking about the Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, written early in the 20th century... It didn't actually succeed because of Godel's incompletness theorem (not sure if that's the formal name for the theorem or not)... Also, in the process Russell discovered a paradox in set theory that led to a contradiction. It was patched by not allowing a set to be a member of it's self, if I remember correctly.
So, basically, mathematics *could* all be wrong, though it is highly unlikely, as the original poster said.
RTFA - or even the title for christ's sake - this is about using living cells to manufacture conventional silicon and solder digital computers. NOT about biological computers.
I think the grandparent's point was that a moratorium on a technology isn't going to stop the sort of people who would use said technology for evil from researching it. For example, we could agree all we wanted to that we aren't going to try to find security holes in IIS, but that's not going to stop Mr. l33th4x0rs|>13 from finding those holes.
Hence the security through obscurity reference - while it may take bad people longer to figure it out without our help (it's obscure, and they won't have a lot of help), we're going to be totally unprepared for it when they do. We won't even have an inkling of an idea of how the exploit/virus/nanobug/magic death box/whatever works, and we'll be fucked as far as finding a fix quickly goes. If we had researched it, we might have found a fix already, or at least we'd have an idea of where to start.
Check out American Spirits, too. They are additive free too, they even have an organic variety if you're into that. I'll put in a vote for Nat Shermans too. Try their king size mints, they're better than they sound. Real mint, not that menthol crap, good with large amounts of alcohol:)
Well, when I was younger, I left a coke can on my dresser. The next day, I had another coke, put it down somewhere, got the two confused. Next thing I knew I had a mouthful of ants. Ew.
I don't think the comparison quite holds. In the video game industry, this is fairly standard practice. Do a Google search. It was only in the past couple months that either Sony or Nintendo actually started making money from their consoles, and that was because of new manufacturing techniques. They plan to make money of their own software and licenses, not the console. Think about it, the average console costs 200 bucks. But the average consumer is going to spend a lot more than that on games. The point is to try to lock them into *your* console.
Yeah, the whole point was that the Foundation developed small, powerful technology, while the stuff back on the Empire homeworld (Can't remember the name. I keep on thinking it was called Trenton... I've been in Jersey too long) was huge, 8 story tall reactors and whatnot that only a small class of highly specialized technicians could maintain.
You should think about moving to New Hampshire - no sales tax at all there. It's amazing, every year hundreds of thousands of Mass-residents migrate along I-95 to do their Christmas shopping, like a train of overgrown lemmings...
>1. The GPL doesn't bar anybody from making money off it.
Da, see correction I posted. Righteous fever, too much neural traffic, dropped a few packets:)
>Prepared? I simply don't believe that mob would exist were I offering my works at a fair price and by a means, in a format, people want.
My point was, once we take control out of one producer's hands, what's to stop "the people" from taking control out of all producer's hands, until we end up with a fascist/communist economy, i.e. You don't really own your own belongings, but are told what you can and can't have. Granted, most consumers are also producers, but for any given group of producers (i.e.: the movie industry), there is a far larger group of consumers (i.e.: us.) So it would be pretty easy for this same sort of regulation to infiltrate any industry once the precedent has been set.
And who determines fairness? If the author has control over his/her work, he can set a what he believes is a fair price for said work, with what he believes are fair conditions on the use of the work. If people don't want it then, then he doesn't make any money, and either adjusts or stays poor. And using artificial scarcity is dangerous - what happens when the guy next door comes up with a similar product and starts selling it for a more reasonable price? Producers don't have a stranglehold on the market, they can't make you buy their product for any price. If you really can't live without Harry Potter, and a ticket to see Harry Potter is $200, you'd better start saving. If people don't think Harry Potter is worth $200 per screening, Harry Potter won't make any money, defeating the company's goal of making a profit. People might gripe now about how movie tickets are $9 or whatever, but they still shell out. If they just stopped going the price would drop pretty quickly. In a purely capitalistic economy, there's no reason to have official votes and regulatory hubbub, you can just 'vote with your dollars.'
If the author doesn't have total control, then who decides what is fair? Do we just vote on what a fair price is? The main incentive for producers to produce is money (Which is really just an easy way of carrying around goods + services. And even the most altrusitcally minded producer needs to eat.) When you open up the value of their labor to vote, you're taking away the main incentive there is for innovation. People are always going to vote for the lowest price. Why spend time on designing a better breadbox when your own life won't be significantly better because of it? Intel doesn't develop a new processor out of altruism, they do it to make a profit, and make their own lives more comfortable.
>And morality *is* up for vote, as soon as youve protected peoples rights. So yup, you've hit the nail on the head.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Isn't the producer's right to his work a capital-R 'right'? And I'm not really sure what you mean by morality being up to vote now. The image I have is some sort of ministry of ethics enforcing the 'people's will' (something like the idiotic drug war, but on a more massive scale), which I'm hoping is not what you mean. I'd also be interested in what your conception of rights is. E-mail me if you want.
>1. That 'right' has changed...
I think I addressed most of this in the above. If the producer wants to release his work in the fashion you described, I don't see any reason he shouldn't. I also don't see any reason why he shouldn't try to make the largest profit possible off his product, as long as he doesn't actively engage in fraud or other criminal activities. The real point is, without him, the product would not exist, so why shouldn't he reap the full benefits?
>If you wanna build a case for the immorality of >copying content without paying for it, at least >respect that a majority of peoples' behaviours >dictate the morality.
I beg to differ on this point. Morality is *not* up for vote. If the majority of people believe stoning women for commiting adultery is immoral (as is believed in some nations), is it moral to stone women for commiting adultery? No! If a majority of people elect a fascist dictator (i.e. Hilter), does that make fascism moral? No! If the majority of Slashdotter's suddenly decide they want to lynch someone for putting up another stupid "n) profit" comment, does that make it ok for them to go ahead and do it? I'm afraid that the idea that morallity is democratically decided is null and void. Morallity exists for a reason, and that reason is the preservation of the human species. Stealing movies is clearly immoral, because it derives the producer of potential returns for his work. Whether or not you (or the majority) would have bought the work is irrelevant, what matters is that the producers own the work and can do with it as they see fit. I believe this is the same principal that underlies the GPL - Open Source programmers produce the code, so they are allowed to bar people from making money off of it. If you wish to challenge a producer's right to his work, be my guest, but be prepared to loose everything when some mob decides they want the things you've produced.
Slashdot Mirror
All I was pointing out is that mathematics hasn't been proven consistent, and more importantly, can't be because of Godel's proof. I'm not sure exactly this has to do with your description/explanation idea... But I agree with you, mathematics doesn't explain anything, we can use it to model phenomena, but it's up to theorists to interpret the models, hence the distinction between quantum mechanics and quantum theory. I just don't get what it has to do with whether or not mathematics is consistent.
You're talking about the Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, written early in the 20th century... It didn't actually succeed because of Godel's incompletness theorem (not sure if that's the formal name for the theorem or not)... Also, in the process Russell discovered a paradox in set theory that led to a contradiction. It was patched by not allowing a set to be a member of it's self, if I remember correctly.
So, basically, mathematics *could* all be wrong, though it is highly unlikely, as the original poster said.
RTFA - or even the title for christ's sake - this is about using living cells to manufacture conventional silicon and solder digital computers. NOT about biological computers.
And all he wanted to do was rescue some Marines stranded on Phobos. Damned insensitive peroxide dealers....
I think the grandparent's point was that a moratorium on a technology isn't going to stop the sort of people who would use said technology for evil from researching it. For example, we could agree all we wanted to that we aren't going to try to find security holes in IIS, but that's not going to stop Mr. l33th4x0rs|>13 from finding those holes.
Hence the security through obscurity reference - while it may take bad people longer to figure it out without our help (it's obscure, and they won't have a lot of help), we're going to be totally unprepared for it when they do. We won't even have an inkling of an idea of how the exploit/virus/nanobug/magic death box/whatever works, and we'll be fucked as far as finding a fix quickly goes. If we had researched it, we might have found a fix already, or at least we'd have an idea of where to start.
"we'll be well on our way to creating clone subhumans to enslave"
w00t! Sign me up for the first batch of D-class submorons. Now I'm off for a nice, refreshing soma vacation, later!
Check out American Spirits, too. They are additive free too, they even have an organic variety if you're into that. I'll put in a vote for Nat Shermans too. Try their king size mints, they're better than they sound. Real mint, not that menthol crap, good with large amounts of alcohol :)
Your genome maybe. I sure as hell want to profit off mine if at all possible :)
I haven't read too much Dickens, but I thought A Tale of Two Cities was pretty rockin'. Maybe that's just me...
Somehow writing "Heming Way" doesn't really convince me of your literariness. I don't mean to be a spelling nazi, but come on already!
Check out epitonic. They've got sample MP3's, and have a lot of variety. Lots of stuff with guitars and drums, too :)
Spam wastes time on you!
:)
Sorry, there hadn't been one yet on this thread, it just didn't feel right
Hell, I'd settle for desktop fission... Microwave too slow? Just toss yer frozen pizza in the reactor core!
Well, when I was younger, I left a coke can on my dresser. The next day, I had another coke, put it down somewhere, got the two confused. Next thing I knew I had a mouthful of ants. Ew.
I don't think the comparison quite holds. In the video game industry, this is fairly standard practice. Do a Google search. It was only in the past couple months that either Sony or Nintendo actually started making money from their consoles, and that was because of new manufacturing techniques. They plan to make money of their own software and licenses, not the console. Think about it, the average console costs 200 bucks. But the average consumer is going to spend a lot more than that on games. The point is to try to lock them into *your* console.
...``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.''
Yeah, the whole point was that the Foundation developed small, powerful technology, while the stuff back on the Empire homeworld (Can't remember the name. I keep on thinking it was called Trenton... I've been in Jersey too long) was huge, 8 story tall reactors and whatnot that only a small class of highly specialized technicians could maintain.
You should think about moving to New Hampshire - no sales tax at all there. It's amazing, every year hundreds of thousands of Mass-residents migrate along I-95 to do their Christmas shopping, like a train of overgrown lemmings...
>1. The GPL doesn't bar anybody from making money off it. :)
Da, see correction I posted. Righteous fever, too much neural traffic, dropped a few packets
>Prepared? I simply don't believe that mob would exist were I offering my works at a fair price and by a means, in a format, people want.
My point was, once we take control out of one producer's hands, what's to stop "the people" from taking control out of all producer's hands, until we end up with a fascist/communist economy, i.e. You don't really own your own belongings, but are told what you can and can't have. Granted, most consumers are also producers, but for any given group of producers (i.e.: the movie industry), there is a far larger group of consumers (i.e.: us.) So it would be pretty easy for this same sort of regulation to infiltrate any industry once the precedent has been set.
And who determines fairness? If the author has control over his/her work, he can set a what he believes is a fair price for said work, with what he believes are fair conditions on the use of the work. If people don't want it then, then he doesn't make any money, and either adjusts or stays poor. And using artificial scarcity is dangerous - what happens when the guy next door comes up with a similar product and starts selling it for a more reasonable price? Producers don't have a stranglehold on the market, they can't make you buy their product for any price. If you really can't live without Harry Potter, and a ticket to see Harry Potter is $200, you'd better start saving. If people don't think Harry Potter is worth $200 per screening, Harry Potter won't make any money, defeating the company's goal of making a profit. People might gripe now about how movie tickets are $9 or whatever, but they still shell out. If they just stopped going the price would drop pretty quickly. In a purely capitalistic economy, there's no reason to have official votes and regulatory hubbub, you can just 'vote with your dollars.'
If the author doesn't have total control, then who decides what is fair? Do we just vote on what a fair price is? The main incentive for producers to produce is money (Which is really just an easy way of carrying around goods + services. And even the most altrusitcally minded producer needs to eat.) When you open up the value of their labor to vote, you're taking away the main incentive there is for innovation. People are always going to vote for the lowest price. Why spend time on designing a better breadbox when your own life won't be significantly better because of it? Intel doesn't develop a new processor out of altruism, they do it to make a profit, and make their own lives more comfortable.
>And morality *is* up for vote, as soon as youve protected peoples rights. So yup, you've hit the nail on the head.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Isn't the producer's right to his work a capital-R 'right'? And I'm not really sure what you mean by morality being up to vote now. The image I have is some sort of ministry of ethics enforcing the 'people's will' (something like the idiotic drug war, but on a more massive scale), which I'm hoping is not what you mean. I'd also be interested in what your conception of rights is. E-mail me if you want.
>1. That 'right' has changed...
I think I addressed most of this in the above. If the producer wants to release his work in the fashion you described, I don't see any reason he shouldn't. I also don't see any reason why he shouldn't try to make the largest profit possible off his product, as long as he doesn't actively engage in fraud or other criminal activities. The real point is, without him, the product would not exist, so why shouldn't he reap the full benefits?
Sorry - GPL, bar people from using it in a certain fashion (closing the source, etc.) Got whipped up in a righteous fury there...
>If you wanna build a case for the immorality of >copying content without paying for it, at least >respect that a majority of peoples' behaviours >dictate the morality.
I beg to differ on this point. Morality is *not* up for vote. If the majority of people believe stoning women for commiting adultery is immoral (as is believed in some nations), is it moral to stone women for commiting adultery? No! If a majority of people elect a fascist dictator (i.e. Hilter), does that make fascism moral? No! If the majority of Slashdotter's suddenly decide they want to lynch someone for putting up another stupid "n) profit" comment, does that make it ok for them to go ahead and do it? I'm afraid that the idea that morallity is democratically decided is null and void. Morallity exists for a reason, and that reason is the preservation of the human species. Stealing movies is clearly immoral, because it derives the producer of potential returns for his work. Whether or not you (or the majority) would have bought the work is irrelevant, what matters is that the producers own the work and can do with it as they see fit. I believe this is the same principal that underlies the GPL - Open Source programmers produce the code, so they are allowed to bar people from making money off of it. If you wish to challenge a producer's right to his work, be my guest, but be prepared to loose everything when some mob decides they want the things you've produced.
>>What is a "Pigeon"? A flying pig, duh!