If they could bomb American cities losing several lives they'd probably do it now. Problem is, that Iran and N Korea know if they did it would be a death sentence to their country and most likely cost 100's of 1000's of lives because of the retaliation.
Drone or not, they aren't coming because they can't win. At least right now. What worries me is if somehow one of these nations figures out what comes "next" after the A-bomb (queue B-Bomb jokes).
The US has the ability to pretty much kill everyone right now. The US isn't perfect, but if it was as evil as many try to paint it, most of the world would be a pile of rubble and the US military wouldn't have any deaths in doing so.
It has nothing to do with our current understanding of physics.
It has everything to do with cause and effect. A simple logical truth in a deterministic universe.
You're off on some tangent. The "current understanding" part I already clearly addressed, and that would be the needed mechanism that avoids causality. It's fine saying "if the universe is deterministic that there might be an unknown mechanism that allows for free will". I said that very clearly. But realize that is what it takes in a deterministic universe to have hard free will. A mechanism that plays outside of the laws of physics.
And please, don't reply more "puff puff give" physics or with more "laws of physics as we understand them now" because I don't know how I can be more clear about determinism. If we say the universe is deterministic that's exactly what it means. Everything is pre-determined. It's the very definition of the word. So you would need a mechanism that violates determinism to have hard free will in a deterministic universe.
And that is why determinism and free will go hand in hand. You need to invoke a complete unknown mechanism to keep hard free will in a deterministic universe.
Realize, I've never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. I only countered the original claim that determinism and free will have nothing to do with each other.
I really don't think you understand the concepts of free will and determinism at all.
It is nothing like your unicorn example. As no one is set up by any trick. The two concepts, hard free will and determinism, are complete opposites. Despite the dude's "Slashdot" post, determinism and free-will are entwined and have been so by philosophers for centuries. Hard free will is all about not falling prey to the laws of the universe because if you could put a deterministic formula onto human choices then it would not be hard free will but only soft free will.
If the universe "is" deterministic and "hard free will" exists then yes, there must be some mechanism that allows for the free will outside of determinism. Because the two are complete contradictions.
As to automaton comment. Entirely untrue. Again, if say for example the universe was shown to be deterministic and it was shown we did not have hard free will, you are left with a consciousness that is solely the result of deterministic physics and while it may seem like we had a true "choice" we never actually did as any choice made was of course pre-determined.
Whether the universe is deterministic or not has everything to say about free will.
Now, to start with you did not define "free will". I've seen 100's and 100's of hours of free will "discussion" all boil down to people using different definitions making it an apples to oranges discussion.
No one argues that people can make choices. That would be, at least, "soft free will". Hard free will is that ability to make choices without contraints of the physical laws of the universe.
Only that latter definition (or variants of it) are meaningful for any discussion because the former no one argues over as we all agree with it.
Now, if we can make choices without the contraints of the laws of the universe that needs a mechanism for doing so. If we can't, then whether the universe is deterministic or not has everything to do with whether we are automatons or not.
As a side note, non-deterministic interpretations of QM have "always" depended upon an assumed "hard free will" of the observer as "evidence" for a non-deterministic universe. And I've always considered it somewhat embarassing that the science community has glossed over that aspect of a popularization of hard science. Though in their defense no one wants to hear that "hard free will" is an illusion.
And you wrote that from an open source non-patented hardware, right? As if silicon is worth more then someone's thoughts. I'm all for the virtues of open source in that peer review finds bugs. But if the software is "that" good, then it is "that" good. There's nothing moral about OSS, it's that such a philosophy should lead to better software. You seem very confused and I doubt you could actually defend your statement.
Things get bad? MS is part of the reason we all have computers at home and at work. Sure they screwed over IBM in doing so, but IBM was the same as Apple back then. MONEY MONEY MONEY CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL.
MS makes a lot of good software, and a lot of bad software. But it's typical/. moronism that creates posts such as yours. You're either too young to remember the 80's and 90's or too stupid to realize what happened. If you're going to knock MS knock them for shit like FrontPage, not something generic where they actually helped things, not hurt them.
You surely must be joking. I mean, I've read a lot of stupid things, but acting as if some very simple languages are so elitist as to not appear on job sites takes the cake.
FYI, in my 12 years paying my bills by writing code I've never seen a job for Python or Ruby ever. Yes, some exist, but they are very rare compared to Java for example. C++ is all over those sites, and I've personally aware of jobs for C++.
I have never for the life of me seen first hand one job, company, organization, or anything, that has a job available or for a Ruby or Python coder. The job-finding sites barely have any. Like a few dozen to a few hundred, compared to 10's of 1000's usually for C# or Java.
Doesn't mean they suck. And actually I've worked a few places that use Sharepoint very well. It's a very nice tool when used for a simple purpose. A document and discussion site for a project.
So what about the/. poster that spends post after post in meaningless MS stories, that if they actually ready them, aren't even stories?
What I don't get is, as intelligent people (which is relative), don't some of you feel the least bit ashamed at the quality of the anti-MS stories here? There is plenty of legit bashing to do. But/. has fallen to the level of posting stuff like this.
/. consistently has misleading headlines on MS stories, not to mention sensationalism. I just don't understand how people that are throwing stones can tolerate the childish posts, and poor and misleading stories that are the sign of any/. related MS article.
Wow, that list uses/. as far as it's rankings. Odd considering/. has an agenda and pushes far more Ruby and Python information then the market would normally dictate.
If Protestantism evolved from Catholicism, why are there still Catholics?
Evolution doesn't require that new species completely replace old ones. It's pretty well everywhere in evolution. And if that was a problem for evolution we'd only be able to have one species on the entire planet of everything.
Pockets of isolation allow mutations to become dominant without completely removing prior genetic material. Think of Australia having many species that only exist there. That's because the evolution there didn't effect animals back in Africa. And isolation doesn't need to be that distinct.
Years ago when Georgia was going through the ID vs Evolution in school issue I saw the national media on site at a high school ask a local student his thoughts. He responded that he wanted ID taught because he knew evolution was full of holes and he could disprove it himself.
Well step up young man and claim your Nobel prize that's waiting you.
Where did he get his (mis)information from? It's not the local drug dealers. It's not the science classes. It's not video games. It's the churches.
There are many churches that deal in lies to peddle their agenda of pushing evolution out of the classroom. It's not a conspiracy theory it's a fact of life in this country.
If man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? People ask that because they've been told that. They've been told that is a hole in evolutionary theory so they parrot it. They aren't told that at the drive through line at McDonalds. They are only told that type of information in religious circles.
I used to argue with Answers in Genesis for years. It was like pulling teeth trying to get them to remove content that was completely non-factual or completely taken out of context. Letter after letter would be sent with references to the correct information, but it would take months or years (or sometimes never) to get them to correct their website. Even though they updated their site regularly. There was no incentive for them to provide correct information because incorrect information is the only way they could build their case against evolution.
The fact that some Christians can't reconcile their religion with a very well grounded theory that has withstood the rigors of science for over 100 years isn't my problem.
Sadly in places people defend your ignorant view. As if there's a middle road here. "Teach both", or "there's room for more then one theory".
Evolution is one of the cornerstones for modern biology. You don't want it taught even though it has withstood over 100 years of scrutiny and is incredibly accepted by the scientific community? Why? Because you don't understand it most likely.
Why don't they just make the glasses so big that you put them over the monitor isntead? That way people don't need to wear them to get the 3D effect? My guess is because this way they can trap you into licensing a pair for every person in your house. 3D EULAs. Great!
Slashdot Mirror
If they could bomb American cities losing several lives they'd probably do it now. Problem is, that Iran and N Korea know if they did it would be a death sentence to their country and most likely cost 100's of 1000's of lives because of the retaliation.
Drone or not, they aren't coming because they can't win. At least right now. What worries me is if somehow one of these nations figures out what comes "next" after the A-bomb (queue B-Bomb jokes).
The US has the ability to pretty much kill everyone right now. The US isn't perfect, but if it was as evil as many try to paint it, most of the world would be a pile of rubble and the US military wouldn't have any deaths in doing so.
It has nothing to do with our current understanding of physics.
It has everything to do with cause and effect. A simple logical truth in a deterministic universe.
You're off on some tangent. The "current understanding" part I already clearly addressed, and that would be the needed mechanism that avoids causality. It's fine saying "if the universe is deterministic that there might be an unknown mechanism that allows for free will". I said that very clearly. But realize that is what it takes in a deterministic universe to have hard free will. A mechanism that plays outside of the laws of physics.
And please, don't reply more "puff puff give" physics or with more "laws of physics as we understand them now" because I don't know how I can be more clear about determinism. If we say the universe is deterministic that's exactly what it means. Everything is pre-determined. It's the very definition of the word. So you would need a mechanism that violates determinism to have hard free will in a deterministic universe.
And that is why determinism and free will go hand in hand. You need to invoke a complete unknown mechanism to keep hard free will in a deterministic universe.
Realize, I've never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. I only countered the original claim that determinism and free will have nothing to do with each other.
I really don't think you understand the concepts of free will and determinism at all.
It is nothing like your unicorn example. As no one is set up by any trick. The two concepts, hard free will and determinism, are complete opposites. Despite the dude's "Slashdot" post, determinism and free-will are entwined and have been so by philosophers for centuries. Hard free will is all about not falling prey to the laws of the universe because if you could put a deterministic formula onto human choices then it would not be hard free will but only soft free will.
If the universe "is" deterministic and "hard free will" exists then yes, there must be some mechanism that allows for the free will outside of determinism. Because the two are complete contradictions.
As to automaton comment. Entirely untrue. Again, if say for example the universe was shown to be deterministic and it was shown we did not have hard free will, you are left with a consciousness that is solely the result of deterministic physics and while it may seem like we had a true "choice" we never actually did as any choice made was of course pre-determined.
Whether the universe is deterministic or not has everything to say about free will.
Now, to start with you did not define "free will". I've seen 100's and 100's of hours of free will "discussion" all boil down to people using different definitions making it an apples to oranges discussion.
No one argues that people can make choices. That would be, at least, "soft free will". Hard free will is that ability to make choices without contraints of the physical laws of the universe.
Only that latter definition (or variants of it) are meaningful for any discussion because the former no one argues over as we all agree with it.
Now, if we can make choices without the contraints of the laws of the universe that needs a mechanism for doing so. If we can't, then whether the universe is deterministic or not has everything to do with whether we are automatons or not.
As a side note, non-deterministic interpretations of QM have "always" depended upon an assumed "hard free will" of the observer as "evidence" for a non-deterministic universe. And I've always considered it somewhat embarassing that the science community has glossed over that aspect of a popularization of hard science. Though in their defense no one wants to hear that "hard free will" is an illusion.
And you wrote that from an open source non-patented hardware, right? As if silicon is worth more then someone's thoughts. I'm all for the virtues of open source in that peer review finds bugs. But if the software is "that" good, then it is "that" good. There's nothing moral about OSS, it's that such a philosophy should lead to better software. You seem very confused and I doubt you could actually defend your statement.
Things get bad? MS is part of the reason we all have computers at home and at work. Sure they screwed over IBM in doing so, but IBM was the same as Apple back then. MONEY MONEY MONEY CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL.
/. moronism that creates posts such as yours. You're either too young to remember the 80's and 90's or too stupid to realize what happened. If you're going to knock MS knock them for shit like FrontPage, not something generic where they actually helped things, not hurt them.
MS makes a lot of good software, and a lot of bad software. But it's typical
Or you know, like a fire.
I can't imagine cooking without gas.
Heating food without gas? I just can't fathom this.
The return of free sex is near!
I don't think laptops existed when this story was new.
The world would be no more interesting. It would be the world you've always known, complete with struggles and accomplishments, and highs and lows.
Plato's cave is really a mathematical proof.
Considering I use my work's exchange mail exclusively with FF I would say the user experience is on par with gmail. I can search, sorta, send, etc.
The IE experience is enchanced due to active X, which I don't care for. The FF experience itself is fine though.
You surely must be joking. I mean, I've read a lot of stupid things, but acting as if some very simple languages are so elitist as to not appear on job sites takes the cake.
FYI, in my 12 years paying my bills by writing code I've never seen a job for Python or Ruby ever. Yes, some exist, but they are very rare compared to Java for example. C++ is all over those sites, and I've personally aware of jobs for C++.
They don't know what they're in for.
The last thing they'll hear before they are mercilessly ganked is "corp por corp por".
I have never for the life of me seen first hand one job, company, organization, or anything, that has a job available or for a Ruby or Python coder. The job-finding sites barely have any. Like a few dozen to a few hundred, compared to 10's of 1000's usually for C# or Java.
Doesn't mean they suck. And actually I've worked a few places that use Sharepoint very well. It's a very nice tool when used for a simple purpose. A document and discussion site for a project.
So what about the /. poster that spends post after post in meaningless MS stories, that if they actually ready them, aren't even stories?
/. has fallen to the level of posting stuff like this.
/. consistently has misleading headlines on MS stories, not to mention sensationalism. I just don't understand how people that are throwing stones can tolerate the childish posts, and poor and misleading stories that are the sign of any /. related MS article.
What I don't get is, as intelligent people (which is relative), don't some of you feel the least bit ashamed at the quality of the anti-MS stories here? There is plenty of legit bashing to do. But
Wow, that list uses /. as far as it's rankings. Odd considering /. has an agenda and pushes far more Ruby and Python information then the market would normally dictate.
And yet when you look at actual jobs, it's at or near the very top well ahead of at least 6 "languages" on your list.
Oh noes!
Not to mention that while PHP is very commonly used on the web, there are not a lot of PHP jobs.
.NET keywords.
.NET.
At computerjobs.com C# returns 8x the number of jobs that PHP returns. Even though many C# jobs are actually hidden in the
As much as many people like Python or Ruby or PHP, the jobs just aren't there compared to Java or
If Protestantism evolved from Catholicism, why are there still Catholics?
Evolution doesn't require that new species completely replace old ones. It's pretty well everywhere in evolution. And if that was a problem for evolution we'd only be able to have one species on the entire planet of everything.
Pockets of isolation allow mutations to become dominant without completely removing prior genetic material. Think of Australia having many species that only exist there. That's because the evolution there didn't effect animals back in Africa. And isolation doesn't need to be that distinct.
Your personal ignorance is your own right. But I will fight against your desire to spread your ignorance to the masses.
And I really don't care for nor want your respect.
Years ago when Georgia was going through the ID vs Evolution in school issue I saw the national media on site at a high school ask a local student his thoughts. He responded that he wanted ID taught because he knew evolution was full of holes and he could disprove it himself.
Well step up young man and claim your Nobel prize that's waiting you.
Where did he get his (mis)information from? It's not the local drug dealers. It's not the science classes. It's not video games.
It's the churches.
There are many churches that deal in lies to peddle their agenda of pushing evolution out of the classroom. It's not a conspiracy theory it's a fact of life in this country.
If man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? People ask that because they've been told that. They've been told that is a hole in evolutionary theory so they parrot it. They aren't told that at the drive through line at McDonalds. They are only told that type of information in religious circles.
I used to argue with Answers in Genesis for years. It was like pulling teeth trying to get them to remove content that was completely non-factual or completely taken out of context. Letter after letter would be sent with references to the correct information, but it would take months or years (or sometimes never) to get them to correct their website. Even though they updated their site regularly. There was no incentive for them to provide correct information because incorrect information is the only way they could build their case against evolution.
The fact that some Christians can't reconcile their religion with a very well grounded theory that has withstood the rigors of science for over 100 years isn't my problem.
Sadly in places people defend your ignorant view. As if there's a middle road here. "Teach both", or "there's room for more then one theory".
Evolution is one of the cornerstones for modern biology. You don't want it taught even though it has withstood over 100 years of scrutiny and is incredibly accepted by the scientific community? Why? Because you don't understand it most likely.
Why don't they just make the glasses so big that you put them over the monitor isntead? That way people don't need to wear them to get the 3D effect? My guess is because this way they can trap you into licensing a pair for every person in your house. 3D EULAs. Great!