Encyclopedias aren't for current events, nything related to current events on Wikipedia can be safely ignored.
from TFA: "No matter what journalists say about the reliability of Wikipedia, they still use it as a resource. I have no doubt that journalists who I discussed [naked shorting] with decided not to do stories after reading Wikipedia - whose treatment [of naked short selling] was completely divorced from reality."
Submitting a patch and that patch being useful to anyone using a non-windows platform are two different things.
JavaScript doesn't run on windows, it runs on browsers.
The Asp.Net team, from whom this announcement comes, have been pretty good for the last few years in making sure that their stuff works in the big 4 browsers: IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera. So their patches would have to work in Firefox and Safari to pass MS internal QA. You can then run it on Windows, Linux, Mac, whatever.
To be cynical, you could say that this is because the ASP.NET team care about selling the server side: Visual Studio licences, IIS installations, and SQL server licences, but that's business and is besides the point; they don't care which browser you use.
Javascript... The good news is that nobody's forcing you to program in it.
If you want to write software for the web, this is not so; you have to know and use some javascript. The good news, some of that code is now jQuery's problem.
MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.
And is that relevant? This issue has been addressed:
Scott Guthrie says: "We will distribute the jQuery JavaScript library as-is, and will not be forking or changing the source from the main jQuery branch."
The Scott Hanselman says: "It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else."
Also, where exactly does the dividing line between laptops and mobile phones lie? They both can run apps and exchange data, including voice data. Project the iPhone, android phone, OLPC and eee pc out for 5 or 10 years and think about what a meaningless distinction it's becoming.
do we think that the internet is the best thing to get into Africa in a hurry?... Get the mobile phone network out first.
What do you mean by "Africa" in this context? it's a vast continent, with a range of economies. I only really known South Africa (one of the better economies) which as two or three decent mobile phone networks. However, due to the large areas involved, you don't get coverage everywhere. Doing this as well as other things would, I think, be a positive thing. The oddest thing about your ideas seems to be that this commercial venture somehow stops other things from happening as well.
rather than always going after the "everyone must have a computer" scenario
If the "everyone must have a computer" scenario is wrong, does that mean that you should attack any attempt to get anyone a computer? Does Africa, in your opinion, have enough computers and internet access?
Oh, and queue the predictable (and correct) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images.
Pedantically, you are correct, but you that's about as far as it goes.
You can pass off someone else's work as your own. You can deprive them of income, and make income off images that you do not have permission to use. Is that better phrasing?
I don't think there is a definition of the human brain.
How about "the stuff that you find inside a living human's skull"?
It's only an information-from-the-future paradox if the information for the prediction was obtained from the future
Sorry, I should have said, it's like an information-from-the-future paradox. You know, where knowing that x is scheduled to happen enables you to take action stopping x happening. See also the halting problem, which does the same thing, but doesn't even require an intelligent actor, just simple software.
"A cannot reliably predict his own actions" is a poor test for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, even in a deterministic universe, the human brain is by definition too simple to completely model the human brain.
Secondly, predicting your own actions is subject to the observer (you) influencing the experiment (you). What's to stop you doing exactly the opposite? It's an information-from-the-future paradox all over again.
The buzzword "free will" is bringing out the idiots with no science education.
I'd rather say, it is bringing out the idiots.
the discussion seems to be conflating free will and being unpredictable/not deterministic. They are not the same. No-one would argue that rolling dice or decaying uranium atoms have free will.
Think about a definition of Free Will for a while... If you believe that you would not act, and think exactly the same then you believe Free Will is beyond quantum mechanics
Not at all, you merely believe that there is randomness in what happens, and that a second time around, the dice would fall differently.
God throwing dice doesn't make me "free", in fact it makes me subject to randomness, less able to chose my own fate. Oh, and deterministic physics isn't any better for "free will".
I'm fairly convinced that the whole concept of "free will" is self-contradictory gibberish.
Science teaches high standards for evidence, more than most faiths in gods or UFOs ask for. Bottom line: if there's real evidence, then it's science not religion.
Provide a rigorous definition of what it means to have (and not have) free will anyway, and then we can start to talk. For starters read and understand Daniel Dennett's Elbow room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting . I read it, but didn't understand it all. But for starters: physicists have been trying to convince themselves that quantum indeterminacy can in some way explain free will. Dennett suggests that this idea is silly. How, he asks, can random resolutions of quantum-level events provide people with any control over their behavior?"
Free will a nebulous and nigh-indefinable subject, and basing a debate on it without setting out your terms of reference is as pointless as arguing about the shapes of clouds.
Maybe the concept of free will is one of those things wired into human conciousness that don't actually mean anything at all.
If an exact copy of you were made (absolutely exact, right down to the quantum state of every particle); do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
Yes, of course it will diverge over time. Random events will see to that.
It's got nothing to do with how poor Labour is at most things, and everything to do with how well they have run the economy
Yeah, that's the thing that worries me: Huge numbers of Iraqis dead - vote them back in Inflation at 4% and house price no longer rising insanely - throw them out
Either labor is entirely supported by the dregs of British society that depend on the welfare state, or there is a lot of bullshit from leftists in Britain.
I'd say it's more likely that their supporters are ignorant and short-sighted, fell for the war and terror rhetoric, and don't really care until it hits them in the wallet. I don't really think that that makes them left, but "New Labour" is determined to blur that distinction anyway.
The proof of this is evident: It has now hit the voters in the wallet, and Labour's support is now in the toilet.
So tell me, what part of 37% makes it apparent that we wanted labour?
37% percent is more than the others got. Don't pretend that it didn't happen. Which after that Iraq and WMD malarkey, is a disgrace that they got that much.
Their secret: increasing the light-catching area 'from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions,' reducing the manufacturing time to 1/10th of the competition's
Also, someone needs to smack the webmaster over there for putting a background texture behind the text. It's pretty unreadable along the left hand side of the screen.
Either they've fixed it already, or it works fine in Firefox 3 and IE 7, for me.
I cannot imagine that there exists on this world one person knowledgable in the field that would not have been hellishly impressed if SpaceX HAD succeded on their third try.
Right. That's what tests are for. Was this a test?
If success this time was an unreasonable expectation, then why was it carrying three satellites on it? Or does it make financial reason to put an expensive payload on a test shot just on the off-chance that it works?
Slashdot Mirror
Encyclopedias aren't for current events, nything related to current events on Wikipedia can be safely ignored.
from TFA: "No matter what journalists say about the reliability of Wikipedia, they still use it as a resource. I have no doubt that journalists who I discussed [naked shorting] with decided not to do stories after reading Wikipedia - whose treatment [of naked short selling] was completely divorced from reality."
Submitting a patch and that patch being useful to anyone using a non-windows platform are two different things.
JavaScript doesn't run on windows, it runs on browsers.
The Asp.Net team, from whom this announcement comes, have been pretty good for the last few years in making sure that their stuff works in the big 4 browsers: IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera. So their patches would have to work in Firefox and Safari to pass MS internal QA. You can then run it on Windows, Linux, Mac, whatever.
To be cynical, you could say that this is because the ASP.NET team care about selling the server side: Visual Studio licences, IIS installations, and SQL server licences, but that's business and is besides the point; they don't care which browser you use.
I hope that gets you over your paranoia.
Javascript ... The good news is that nobody's forcing you to program in it.
If you want to write software for the web, this is not so; you have to know and use some javascript. The good news, some of that code is now jQuery's problem.
MIT license is not a source-required license. Companies may sell, close it up, whatever they wish so long as they continue to give credit to the original product.
And is that relevant? This issue has been addressed:
Scott Guthrie says:
"We will distribute the jQuery JavaScript library as-is, and will not be forking or changing the source from the main jQuery branch."
The Scott Hanselman says:
"It's Open Source, and we'll use it and ship it via its MIT license, unchanged. If there's changes we want, we'll submit a patch just like anyone else."
Mobiles not laptops
Also, where exactly does the dividing line between laptops and mobile phones lie? They both can run apps and exchange data, including voice data. Project the iPhone, android phone, OLPC and eee pc out for 5 or 10 years and think about what a meaningless distinction it's becoming.
do we think that the internet is the best thing to get into Africa in a hurry? ... Get the mobile phone network out first.
What do you mean by "Africa" in this context? it's a vast continent, with a range of economies. I only really known South Africa (one of the better economies) which as two or three decent mobile phone networks. However, due to the large areas involved, you don't get coverage everywhere. Doing this as well as other things would, I think, be a positive thing. The oddest thing about your ideas seems to be that this commercial venture somehow stops other things from happening as well.
rather than always going after the "everyone must have a computer" scenario
If the "everyone must have a computer" scenario is wrong, does that mean that you should attack any attempt to get anyone a computer? Does Africa, in your opinion, have enough computers and internet access?
NAT is not a solution. It's a huge, gigantic clusterfuck of a problem.
Can't it be both? Like so many things.
Stop worrying and just buy more RAM - it's dirt cheap
And over 4 Gb, it won't help the usual 32-bit builds of XP or vista. That's all that they can address. And many of us are already there.
This is why 64-bit Windows will finally become the default in a year or two. But that's another story.
Oh, and queue the predictable (and correct) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images.
Pedantically, you are correct, but you that's about as far as it goes.
You can pass off someone else's work as your own. You can deprive them of income, and make income off images that you do not have permission to use. Is that better phrasing?
I don't think there is a definition of the human brain.
How about "the stuff that you find inside a living human's skull"?
It's only an information-from-the-future paradox if the information for the prediction was obtained from the future
Sorry, I should have said, it's like an information-from-the-future paradox. You know, where knowing that x is scheduled to happen enables you to take action stopping x happening. See also the halting problem, which does the same thing, but doesn't even require an intelligent actor, just simple software.
"A cannot reliably predict his own actions" is a poor test for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, even in a deterministic universe, the human brain is by definition too simple to completely model the human brain.
Secondly, predicting your own actions is subject to the observer (you) influencing the experiment (you). What's to stop you doing exactly the opposite? It's an information-from-the-future paradox all over again.
The buzzword "free will" is bringing out the idiots with no science education.
I'd rather say, it is bringing out the idiots.
the discussion seems to be conflating free will and being unpredictable/not deterministic.
They are not the same. No-one would argue that rolling dice or decaying uranium atoms have free will.
Think about a definition of Free Will for a while. .. If you believe that you would not act, and think exactly the same then you believe Free Will is beyond quantum mechanics
Not at all, you merely believe that there is randomness in what happens, and that a second time around, the dice would fall differently.
God throwing dice doesn't make me "free", in fact it makes me subject to randomness, less able to chose my own fate. Oh, and deterministic physics isn't any better for "free will".
I'm fairly convinced that the whole concept of "free will" is self-contradictory gibberish.
What "random events"?
Many sub-atomic events are random. Nuclear decay, position of particles after collapse of the quantum wave function, etc.
randomness is not "free will"
I agree with you, and I didn't say that it was. The question posed was if the two would diverge. I think that they would.
Science teaches high standards for evidence, more than most faiths in gods or UFOs ask for.
Bottom line: if there's real evidence, then it's science not religion.
Provide a rigorous definition of what it means to have (and not have) free will anyway, and then we can start to talk. For starters read and understand Daniel Dennett's Elbow room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting . I read it, but didn't understand it all. But for starters: physicists have been trying to convince themselves that quantum indeterminacy can in some way explain free will. Dennett suggests that this idea is silly. How, he asks, can random resolutions of quantum-level events provide people with any control over their behavior?"
Free will a nebulous and nigh-indefinable subject, and basing a debate on it without setting out your terms of reference is as pointless as arguing about the shapes of clouds.
Maybe the concept of free will is one of those things wired into human conciousness that don't actually mean anything at all.
If an exact copy of you were made (absolutely exact, right down to the quantum state of every particle); do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
Yes, of course it will diverge over time. Random events will see to that.
I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him
he doesn't have to be perfect, he just has to be better than his opponent. Read the comic already. Panel 1 should do it.
The BBC iPlayer, like Apple, is a company
No, no it isn't.
The rest of your post can be ignored, given that initial error.
It's got nothing to do with how poor Labour is at most things, and everything to do with how well they have run the economy
Yeah, that's the thing that worries me:
Huge numbers of Iraqis dead - vote them back in
Inflation at 4% and house price no longer rising insanely - throw them out
Either labor is entirely supported by the dregs of British society that depend on the welfare state, or there is a lot of bullshit from leftists in Britain.
I'd say it's more likely that their supporters are ignorant and short-sighted, fell for the war and terror rhetoric, and don't really care until it hits them in the wallet. I don't really think that that makes them left, but "New Labour" is determined to blur that distinction anyway.
The proof of this is evident: It has now hit the voters in the wallet, and Labour's support is now in the toilet.
So tell me, what part of 37% makes it apparent that we wanted labour?
37% percent is more than the others got.
Don't pretend that it didn't happen.
Which after that Iraq and WMD malarkey, is a disgrace that they got that much.
Their secret: increasing the light-catching area 'from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions,' reducing the manufacturing time to 1/10th of the competition's
So, what's the secret to their secret?
Also, someone needs to smack the webmaster over there for putting a background texture behind the text. It's pretty unreadable along the left hand side of the screen.
Either they've fixed it already, or it works fine in Firefox 3 and IE 7, for me.
I cannot imagine that there exists on this world one person knowledgable in the field that would not have been hellishly impressed if SpaceX HAD succeded on their third try.
Right. That's what tests are for. Was this a test?
If success this time was an unreasonable expectation, then why was it carrying three satellites on it? Or does it make financial reason to put an expensive payload on a test shot just on the off-chance that it works?