"The company says that Apple's use of Tiger has changed internet search results, directly impacting its ability to market product to its customers. The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results."
I don't know what these guys are smoking. Tiger Direct comes up as #2 on Google.
Bravo, Argentina. From what I gathered without reading TFA, this is one of the most useful laws a government could come up with. Since, as everyone agrees, the task of logging every Internet transaction cannot be possibly accomplished, it will effectively make every ISP/TELCO guilty, which, in turn, will give the government a legal power to shut down any of these organization at will, or, more realistically, tell them what to do and hear a cheerful "Yes, boss" in reply. It is largely irrelevant what Joe Schmoe will say in his ICQ chat; what matters is control over the infrastructure.
We at US of A have something to learn from these guys about a vertical government.
Since I got a Mac a few months ago, I've been using Preview. Loads instantly, has a nice interface, opened every file so far. I do not see any reason to have an Adobe reader on Mac...
From TFA I gathered that they (MS) call for greater accessability of the patent system by small businesses, and they propose to achieve it by getting rid of the registration fee.
So, let us see. Certainly that will not stop MS and its ilk from patenting; but it will also result in a flood of new patent applications which will come from small businesses and individuals. Soon we will have an endless see of patents dominated by the big fish. We all know that even though anyone can register these things, only the biggest players can really enjoy their benefits in the marketplace -- if only because their deep pockets allow them to litigate more rigorously.
While they do not advocate software patents in TFA, they do so in other venues. So throw in the software patents, and then in a few years we will have everything patented -- inventions, ideas, DNAs, etc., etc.... It beats me how a monopoly can be challenged under such circumstances, or, most importantly, how can a person with a great idea enter the marketplace. It is clear that no matter how original an invention is, there is always enough prior art to warrant some litigation.
If anything, we need to reduce the scope of patentable things, as well as the scope of monopoly granted by the government. Patent system, if used at all (I would opt out), should concern itself only with inventions that are truly original, difficult to come up with, expensive to research, and pose no major moral conundrums when monopolized (like life-saving drugs!). Allowing to patent anything else can only lead us to a stagnation of ideas and is against the purpose of the patent system.
IMO, it is diffucult to decide what the children should be taught. I, for example, was interested in Philosophy and Theology since I was 12 or so, and my Russian highschool starved me to death by neglecting these subjects. I got kicked out of the second year of CS program, because I was so inept in Math. Look at me now, doing a master's in mathematical logic...
If I may generalize your statemetnt, I think that it takes a certain level of maturity (please don't sue me, I used your words!) to become interested in any area of study, and different people grow in different ways.
There's a REASON why you don't see many girl geeks...
Can you identify it for us then? It is quite obvious that a set of cultural conditions exists, which allows genders to excel in certain areas, but to say that gender roles are "natural" is a bit too bold.
While every society features some kind of labour division based on gender, the specifics are very hard to explain by "natural" causes. Take prostitution. In our age it is almost exclusively a female occupation. If we are hasty, we may conclude that females are naturally good at whoring out. But a quick look at the Greeko-Roman society -- that's only 2000 years ago -- can convince us in the contrary: male prostitution was so prominent, that a colloquial for "young man" was "prick". The ideal of beauty, likewise, was a male body, and female bodies were just found useful.
I promise you my girlfriend just wouldn't ever enjoy spending 6 hours recompiling and securing a *nix system.
It almost sounds like you are saying, between the lines, that you would not ever want your girlfriend to be geeky in this way. Which is not to much to ask in an egalitarian relationship. After all, if people start living together, and happen to meet each other's expectations, then who is to say that their gender roles are improper?
Again, however, your particular example does not qualify as a proof that females are naturally indisposed to the IT labour, although it may support a notion that a traditional IT-inept female finds herself to be well-adjusted for the modern social life.
I am going to such lengths describing this distinction, because in the course of my rather modest IT career I have met plenty of highly competent females, who were able to do their jobs without any noticeable detriment to their social lives. In particular, one of my favourite books on the basics of *nix administration is written by a female.
1) What if the door checker is "in on" the scam, too?
I spent 5 months being one of those cheerful guys guarding the exit door at Fry's Electronics, and I can testify that mr. Fry and co. are paying pretty darn well (read: hundreds of dollars) for each lead on the act of shoplifting involving employees. They are not as dumb as they seem to be.
That is one step closer to a human-like AI -- reminds me of a neural net. The technology from TFA may be just what they (computers) need to become like us: i.e. an ability to make quick decisions about complex problems, and succeeding more often than failing.
I, for one, welcome our unpredictable silicon overlords.
MS is rotting simply because Linux is catching up. Yes, I've heard it too many times: Linux is not ready for a desktop, nor does it seem like it will ever be.
Get a grip. Imagine that tomorrow Windows and Mac OS will be gone. Forever. No more Windows or Mac OS. The question to ask is: can Linux manage on the desktop? Is it technologically ready? Let's see:
Hardware support - check.
Pretty windows - check.
Internet browser - check.
Office app - check.
Image processing app - check.
Finance app - check.
Sound/GFX libraries for games - check.
...
It doesn't take a degree in CS to see that Linux is fully capable of replacing Windows and Mac OS, even though it may not have all the flourish of proprietary OSes. It is ready today.
MS has only one chance: it should squash Linux right now, stomp it into the ground, bury it, and make sure that it never rises again. Why? Here's the prophecy.
<prophecy>
Two things will happen as soon as Linux gains the critical mass on a desktop: someone of notice will man the dumb user support. Scenario: Dell releases a Linux Dell with killer apps preinstalled and with automated updater preconfigured. Grandma will never know what hit her. On the heels of the support will come niche software development -- most notably, games. Linux starts its millennial rule, Microsoft changes name to Macrohard and cleverly switches to streaming ad-supported pr0n. That's not really a total collapse, but it's better this way, since they will be doing what they can do best.
Oh, yeah, and the mice. I got nothing on MS mice. IMHO, no one does.
The more I read about email, the more I am convinced that it will eventually go under. I do not think that we'll have to create a new system, but a paradigm shift is inevitable. Spam is unbeatable, because the only way to filter it out is by content. But every time we come up with an algorithm to detect spam, they respond with an algorithm to foil us. A classic arms race -- and nobody wins.
It was a pure fantasy, anyway, to expect that email will function just like USPS, but faster. It is about time to start using Internet the way it can be used best. The change must occur in the culture. How about whitelisting by default? May seem inconvenient at first, but once it gets a proper mindshare, it will become almost invisible. Let there be a pass of some sort which cannot be collected automatically -- for example, a subject line which you list on your website -- that can enable the incoming email to get through and to whitelist the sender at the same time. When you receive your first spam email, you just un-whitelist it and change your pass. Done.
Store your pass anywhere you want, put it out in the open if you want, just keep it two paces apart from your email listing, just enough to make it infeasible to collect email/pass pairs automatically.
If people know and expect that emails tend to be guarded with such passes, they will request you to provide them along with the email -- not much strain on communication, since passes could be as simple as your mum's name. All they need to do is to send you one "introductory" email -- and they don't have to worry about it anymore.
Seriously though, I am at loss as to the practical steps we need to take today if we ever want to see spam-free Internet.
If you think that Slashdot crowd is leftish or reddish, you haven't visited Berkeley. I, for one, would be surprised if they didn't mention the foil...
This is an excellent summary. My anarchist tendencies aside, I wish we would have the same kind of balance for indexing on the Internet -- that is, if we are to dance to the copyright tune. I want to see a set of guidelines for an indexing service outlining their responsibilities regarding the indexed content. I do not want them to be very stringent and taxing on the provider, as it would only serve to curb the commerce opportunities for people like us (Ebay fans). Indiscriminately suing people for linking, especially when they are ready to comply with removal requests (like in subj!), is not the way to do it.
And there are problems, not least of which is opt-out copyright model. That certainly has to go. I do not see how reproduction rights can be established if the content owners are not required to register anywhere.
Tracers work both ways; indexing makes it easier to pirate, but it also aids copyright holders in seeking violators. It would seem to me that the best way to deal with the situation is to use indices for persecution of actual pirates, and leave their hosts alone for as long as they cooperate.
I really hope that involved authorities will let the guy off the hook. I do not think that he deserves anything more than a warning.
A number of people here classified the defendant's actions as accessory to a crime, but I cannot see why it should be so. Their argument is, by providing links to the copyrighted works he assisted others in illegal activities -- namely, hosting and transferring illegal copies of music files.
Guess what, by the same logic we should sue the owners of pawn shops. It is hardly doubtful that pawn shops serve as fences. Shall we now require the owners to research the background of every item? To collect SSNs of sellers? Shall we sue them for each stolen item they have sold?
EBay, anyone? Search for laptops and ask yourself a simple question: why are the serial numbers filed off? Oops. They must be fencing. You must agree, it is highly tempting. Personally, if I ever steal a laptop, you shall see it on EBay. So let us close up EBay too, lest private individuals decide that they have a right to sell stuff in an egalitarian environment.
How is the subj different? Suppose, I run a reference web site; someone comes over to me and notifies me of a music file. Is it my responsibility to check the copyright? Why should it be? I am not the one hosting it! Unless I am notified that the links point to pirated works, why should I assume so? I am just facilitating music trading, and I do not care whence it came from and where it will go. If you shut me down, you will effectively take away a private individual's right to traffic music. Do not delude yourself: I really mean all music, and not just sell, but even to give away for free. If the linker can be sued for a mistake made by a content provider, who is going to link to music? Mmm... RIIA... RIIA's bitches... Nothing else comes to mind.
So, guys, if things like pawn shops, EBay, and promiscuous web-linking create a possibility of individuals engaging in trafficking illegal goods, the best thing, apparently, is to sue those who facilitate the commerce, and leave a little man without a way to trade with anyone except multinational corporations.
I was thinking about borrowing small fractions of copyrighted works without permission for the last few days, and I suspect that it is legal, given that fractions are small and therefore meaningless.
Could it be the pirate's last and true hope? (I came to be fond of the pirate label, as it invokes images of booty and governors' daughters.) Seriously, stay with me for a moment. Take music. Suppose, we take samples so miniscule that it would be insane to claim ownership over them, and imbed them into public domain works in a specific way (important!), thus creating new public domain works which can be distributed legally. For example, a 3 minute Metallica song is split into 300 parts, and each part is infused into a public domain work -- a receptor. I am sure that there are ways to split a track in such a way that individual parts will become essentially meaningless. Then the receptors are labeled accordingly and distributed by fans legally. P2P may play a vital role in distribution, but it gets better: fans can actually put them on their websites and get them indexed by Google and everything else. With internet services getting cheaper by the minute, the supply will beat the demand on the most popular items. Now it may be left up to a client software to find, download receptors, and reassemble the original song by Metallica. This is what I meant by splitting in a specific way -- being able to reverse the process once all the parts are available.
If 300 fragments are not enough to loose the meaning, let it be 3000 fragments. The beauty of this scheme is in that it does not matter how many pieces there are. Once the meaning is lost, the work escapes the copyright. Once it escapes the copyright, it can be published in the open. Once it gets published in the open, it can get indexed efficiently. The end.
This seems too simple to be real. I welcome your criticism -- specifically, why it cannot work. Also, let me know of any similar existing projects, please. In fact, I feel so pumped up right now, let me know if you are willing to contribute to such a project. >:-)
You know they're planning for an expansion pack at some point (because that's just how Blizzard works, come on - and the current level cap is such a weird number: 60?)
Was a 99 cap in D2 any less weird?...I should say, is it?
I've been playing from day one (and a few months before that -- in demo) and let me just offer you my subjective experience. As soon as the problems surfaced on a number of Western servers, Blizzard suggested players to spread out without regard to the time zones, and they promised that the choice of a server in a different time zone will not affect the performance. I did just that, (moved to Sargeras, in central time) and did not experience any significant outages ever since. Little annoyances are abound -- mostly related to a huge population in the capital cities, and small outages still happen from time to time, but there was ultimately nothing that caused me to think "OK, I want my money back". If anything, I played too much:-)
I think Blizzard is doing the right thing now, aiming to satisfy its current customer base, while sacrificing some of the profits they could make on additional sales. As a current customer, I give them two thumbs up.
The point I think the parent poster had, is, right now the only scientific explanation for consciousness (sic) is the brain, nothing more.
Parent poster would be mistaken if he said so, but he actually didn't.
As I noted already, the only scientific explanation for consciousness we have today is psychological, and has nothing to do with neural science. You can call it fuzzy subjective bullshit all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that neural science does not explain consciousness at all. To say that "consciousness is the sum of neural activity" is not a scientific theory, because it does not help to predict anything -- it is a metaphysical statement, and a fundamental belief that many of us share today -- even me.
Slashdot Mirror
"The company says that Apple's use of Tiger has changed internet search results, directly impacting its ability to market product to its customers. The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results."
I don't know what these guys are smoking. Tiger Direct comes up as #2 on Google.
Here, I have found an offshore website wich still has the goods. Keywords: screenshots, mirror.
Bravo, Argentina. From what I gathered without reading TFA, this is one of the most useful laws a government could come up with. Since, as everyone agrees, the task of logging every Internet transaction cannot be possibly accomplished, it will effectively make every ISP/TELCO guilty, which, in turn, will give the government a legal power to shut down any of these organization at will, or, more realistically, tell them what to do and hear a cheerful "Yes, boss" in reply. It is largely irrelevant what Joe Schmoe will say in his ICQ chat; what matters is control over the infrastructure. We at US of A have something to learn from these guys about a vertical government.
Good Microsoft versus bad little guy...
Does not compute!
Since I got a Mac a few months ago, I've been using Preview. Loads instantly, has a nice interface, opened every file so far. I do not see any reason to have an Adobe reader on Mac...
Mod parent up please!
So, the damage to the label-side, i.e. not the read side, is worse? Please explain.
From TFA I gathered that they (MS) call for greater accessability of the patent system by small businesses, and they propose to achieve it by getting rid of the registration fee.
So, let us see. Certainly that will not stop MS and its ilk from patenting; but it will also result in a flood of new patent applications which will come from small businesses and individuals. Soon we will have an endless see of patents dominated by the big fish. We all know that even though anyone can register these things, only the biggest players can really enjoy their benefits in the marketplace -- if only because their deep pockets allow them to litigate more rigorously.
While they do not advocate software patents in TFA, they do so in other venues. So throw in the software patents, and then in a few years we will have everything patented -- inventions, ideas, DNAs, etc., etc. ... It beats me how a monopoly can be challenged under such circumstances, or, most importantly, how can a person with a great idea enter the marketplace. It is clear that no matter how original an invention is, there is always enough prior art to warrant some litigation.
If anything, we need to reduce the scope of patentable things, as well as the scope of monopoly granted by the government. Patent system, if used at all (I would opt out), should concern itself only with inventions that are truly original, difficult to come up with, expensive to research, and pose no major moral conundrums when monopolized (like life-saving drugs!). Allowing to patent anything else can only lead us to a stagnation of ideas and is against the purpose of the patent system.
Mod the parent informative please, the page he refers to is wordy and angry, but it does make a lot of sense.
I read it as
IMO, it is diffucult to decide what the children should be taught. I, for example, was interested in Philosophy and Theology since I was 12 or so, and my Russian highschool starved me to death by neglecting these subjects. I got kicked out of the second year of CS program, because I was so inept in Math. Look at me now, doing a master's in mathematical logic...
If I may generalize your statemetnt, I think that it takes a certain level of maturity (please don't sue me, I used your words!) to become interested in any area of study, and different people grow in different ways.
Can you identify it for us then? It is quite obvious that a set of cultural conditions exists, which allows genders to excel in certain areas, but to say that gender roles are "natural" is a bit too bold.
While every society features some kind of labour division based on gender, the specifics are very hard to explain by "natural" causes. Take prostitution. In our age it is almost exclusively a female occupation. If we are hasty, we may conclude that females are naturally good at whoring out. But a quick look at the Greeko-Roman society -- that's only 2000 years ago -- can convince us in the contrary: male prostitution was so prominent, that a colloquial for "young man" was "prick". The ideal of beauty, likewise, was a male body, and female bodies were just found useful.
It almost sounds like you are saying, between the lines, that you would not ever want your girlfriend to be geeky in this way. Which is not to much to ask in an egalitarian relationship. After all, if people start living together, and happen to meet each other's expectations, then who is to say that their gender roles are improper?
Again, however, your particular example does not qualify as a proof that females are naturally indisposed to the IT labour, although it may support a notion that a traditional IT-inept female finds herself to be well-adjusted for the modern social life.
I am going to such lengths describing this distinction, because in the course of my rather modest IT career I have met plenty of highly competent females, who were able to do their jobs without any noticeable detriment to their social lives. In particular, one of my favourite books on the basics of *nix administration is written by a female.
I spent 5 months being one of those cheerful guys guarding the exit door at Fry's Electronics, and I can testify that mr. Fry and co. are paying pretty darn well (read: hundreds of dollars) for each lead on the act of shoplifting involving employees. They are not as dumb as they seem to be.
I am using Lynx, you insensitive clod!
That is one step closer to a human-like AI -- reminds me of a neural net. The technology from TFA may be just what they (computers) need to become like us: i.e. an ability to make quick decisions about complex problems, and succeeding more often than failing.
I, for one, welcome our unpredictable silicon overlords.
Here goes an analysis of my own.
MS is rotting simply because Linux is catching up. Yes, I've heard it too many times: Linux is not ready for a desktop, nor does it seem like it will ever be.
Get a grip. Imagine that tomorrow Windows and Mac OS will be gone. Forever. No more Windows or Mac OS. The question to ask is: can Linux manage on the desktop? Is it technologically ready? Let's see:
It doesn't take a degree in CS to see that Linux is fully capable of replacing Windows and Mac OS, even though it may not have all the flourish of proprietary OSes. It is ready today.
MS has only one chance: it should squash Linux right now, stomp it into the ground, bury it, and make sure that it never rises again. Why? Here's the prophecy.
<prophecy>
Two things will happen as soon as Linux gains the critical mass on a desktop: someone of notice will man the dumb user support. Scenario: Dell releases a Linux Dell with killer apps preinstalled and with automated updater preconfigured. Grandma will never know what hit her. On the heels of the support will come niche software development -- most notably, games. Linux starts its millennial rule, Microsoft changes name to Macrohard and cleverly switches to streaming ad-supported pr0n. That's not really a total collapse, but it's better this way, since they will be doing what they can do best.
Oh, yeah, and the mice. I got nothing on MS mice. IMHO, no one does.
</prophecy>
If a domain name is all cyrilic then there is unlikely to be a problem.
These can be spelled in pure Cyrillyc:
Btw, does anyone know how to post Cyrillic on /.? Is it even possible?
The more I read about email, the more I am convinced that it will eventually go under. I do not think that we'll have to create a new system, but a paradigm shift is inevitable. Spam is unbeatable, because the only way to filter it out is by content. But every time we come up with an algorithm to detect spam, they respond with an algorithm to foil us. A classic arms race -- and nobody wins.
It was a pure fantasy, anyway, to expect that email will function just like USPS, but faster. It is about time to start using Internet the way it can be used best. The change must occur in the culture. How about whitelisting by default? May seem inconvenient at first, but once it gets a proper mindshare, it will become almost invisible. Let there be a pass of some sort which cannot be collected automatically -- for example, a subject line which you list on your website -- that can enable the incoming email to get through and to whitelist the sender at the same time. When you receive your first spam email, you just un-whitelist it and change your pass. Done.
Store your pass anywhere you want, put it out in the open if you want, just keep it two paces apart from your email listing, just enough to make it infeasible to collect email/pass pairs automatically.
If people know and expect that emails tend to be guarded with such passes, they will request you to provide them along with the email -- not much strain on communication, since passes could be as simple as your mum's name. All they need to do is to send you one "introductory" email -- and they don't have to worry about it anymore.
Seriously though, I am at loss as to the practical steps we need to take today if we ever want to see spam-free Internet.
If you think that Slashdot crowd is leftish or reddish, you haven't visited Berkeley. I, for one, would be surprised if they didn't mention the foil...
This is an excellent summary. My anarchist tendencies aside, I wish we would have the same kind of balance for indexing on the Internet -- that is, if we are to dance to the copyright tune. I want to see a set of guidelines for an indexing service outlining their responsibilities regarding the indexed content. I do not want them to be very stringent and taxing on the provider, as it would only serve to curb the commerce opportunities for people like us (Ebay fans). Indiscriminately suing people for linking, especially when they are ready to comply with removal requests (like in subj!), is not the way to do it.
And there are problems, not least of which is opt-out copyright model. That certainly has to go. I do not see how reproduction rights can be established if the content owners are not required to register anywhere.
Tracers work both ways; indexing makes it easier to pirate, but it also aids copyright holders in seeking violators. It would seem to me that the best way to deal with the situation is to use indices for persecution of actual pirates, and leave their hosts alone for as long as they cooperate.
I really hope that involved authorities will let the guy off the hook. I do not think that he deserves anything more than a warning.
A number of people here classified the defendant's actions as accessory to a crime, but I cannot see why it should be so. Their argument is, by providing links to the copyrighted works he assisted others in illegal activities -- namely, hosting and transferring illegal copies of music files.
Guess what, by the same logic we should sue the owners of pawn shops. It is hardly doubtful that pawn shops serve as fences. Shall we now require the owners to research the background of every item? To collect SSNs of sellers? Shall we sue them for each stolen item they have sold?
EBay, anyone? Search for laptops and ask yourself a simple question: why are the serial numbers filed off? Oops. They must be fencing. You must agree, it is highly tempting. Personally, if I ever steal a laptop, you shall see it on EBay. So let us close up EBay too, lest private individuals decide that they have a right to sell stuff in an egalitarian environment.
How is the subj different? Suppose, I run a reference web site; someone comes over to me and notifies me of a music file. Is it my responsibility to check the copyright? Why should it be? I am not the one hosting it! Unless I am notified that the links point to pirated works, why should I assume so? I am just facilitating music trading, and I do not care whence it came from and where it will go. If you shut me down, you will effectively take away a private individual's right to traffic music. Do not delude yourself: I really mean all music, and not just sell, but even to give away for free. If the linker can be sued for a mistake made by a content provider, who is going to link to music? Mmm... RIIA... RIIA's bitches... Nothing else comes to mind.
So, guys, if things like pawn shops, EBay, and promiscuous web-linking create a possibility of individuals engaging in trafficking illegal goods, the best thing, apparently, is to sue those who facilitate the commerce, and leave a little man without a way to trade with anyone except multinational corporations.
As an EBay fan to an EBay fan: Fuck You.
I was thinking about borrowing small fractions of copyrighted works without permission for the last few days, and I suspect that it is legal, given that fractions are small and therefore meaningless.
Could it be the pirate's last and true hope? (I came to be fond of the pirate label, as it invokes images of booty and governors' daughters.) Seriously, stay with me for a moment. Take music. Suppose, we take samples so miniscule that it would be insane to claim ownership over them, and imbed them into public domain works in a specific way (important!), thus creating new public domain works which can be distributed legally. For example, a 3 minute Metallica song is split into 300 parts, and each part is infused into a public domain work -- a receptor. I am sure that there are ways to split a track in such a way that individual parts will become essentially meaningless. Then the receptors are labeled accordingly and distributed by fans legally. P2P may play a vital role in distribution, but it gets better: fans can actually put them on their websites and get them indexed by Google and everything else. With internet services getting cheaper by the minute, the supply will beat the demand on the most popular items. Now it may be left up to a client software to find, download receptors, and reassemble the original song by Metallica. This is what I meant by splitting in a specific way -- being able to reverse the process once all the parts are available.
If 300 fragments are not enough to loose the meaning, let it be 3000 fragments. The beauty of this scheme is in that it does not matter how many pieces there are. Once the meaning is lost, the work escapes the copyright. Once it escapes the copyright, it can be published in the open. Once it gets published in the open, it can get indexed efficiently. The end.
This seems too simple to be real. I welcome your criticism -- specifically, why it cannot work. Also, let me know of any similar existing projects, please. In fact, I feel so pumped up right now, let me know if you are willing to contribute to such a project. >:-)
You know they're planning for an expansion pack at some point (because that's just how Blizzard works, come on - and the current level cap is such a weird number: 60?) Was a 99 cap in D2 any less weird? ...I should say, is it?
I've been playing from day one (and a few months before that -- in demo) and let me just offer you my subjective experience. As soon as the problems surfaced on a number of Western servers, Blizzard suggested players to spread out without regard to the time zones, and they promised that the choice of a server in a different time zone will not affect the performance. I did just that, (moved to Sargeras, in central time) and did not experience any significant outages ever since. Little annoyances are abound -- mostly related to a huge population in the capital cities, and small outages still happen from time to time, but there was ultimately nothing that caused me to think "OK, I want my money back". If anything, I played too much :-)
I think Blizzard is doing the right thing now, aiming to satisfy its current customer base, while sacrificing some of the profits they could make on additional sales. As a current customer, I give them two thumbs up.
The point I think the parent poster had, is, right now the only scientific explanation for consciousness (sic) is the brain, nothing more.
Parent poster would be mistaken if he said so, but he actually didn't.
As I noted already, the only scientific explanation for consciousness we have today is psychological, and has nothing to do with neural science. You can call it fuzzy subjective bullshit all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that neural science does not explain consciousness at all. To say that "consciousness is the sum of neural activity" is not a scientific theory, because it does not help to predict anything -- it is a metaphysical statement, and a fundamental belief that many of us share today -- even me.