Exactly. Apple builds on top of everybody's ideas, just like everybody else. They think that is honest, and think they are entitled to borrow technology from any company because those technologies aren't shiny, and therefore are worthless. They also think it's ok to take ideas from others because they will make a "revolutionary product" with them. But when anybody else takes an idea from them, it's an outrage.
Apple took BSD, KHTML, and a lot of code and ideas from other projects with licenses permissive enough to let them do so, turned them into privative software, closed down everything, and forgot to even give credit. I actually consider them in violation of the BSD license on that point (When was the last time you saw "The regents of the university of California" mentioned anywhere in their about box?
But Apple thinks this is ok. Just like they think it was ok to steal the mouse from Xerox.
They gave Google hell for their market, as if it was Apple's idea, when it was clearly borrowed from the packets system on most GNU/Linux distro since the 90's.
- Android is Free Software - The company behind android didn't start a single patent war, all litigations have been against companies that have attacked them. - The biggest android manufacturer, Samsung, is VERY hacker friendly, to the point where you can just boot into recovery just by holding two keys, and when you get there, they tell you that if you want you can install your own OS, and remind you that you should be careful while flashing. - There are huge communities built around creating custom ROMs, they are all legal, and nobody has been sued. - There are several markets available, you can install any of those, and there is an actual option that says "Allow apps from unknown sources", right there in the default android config, and after ticking it, you can just point your browser to an apk and download anything you want. - Out of the box, you can tick a single option and get a console.
I'm not biased. What I presented is clear evidence that none of the companies behind android are fighting a copyright/patents war.
Except it's totally not the same situation. Apple has been attacking every single android manufacturer plus google itself for a very long time. This is retaliation. Somebody HAS to deal with apple. I'm not an idiot, I don't fantasize about how good and altruistic google is. It's a corporation, and it defends its interests, sure. But this move can't be considered a cold-blooded attack, it's self-defense against a patent troll who openly stated their intentions to use their every resource to destroy android.
Bullshit. Samsung had 44% of Q2's Android sales, and shipped 46 million phones, while apple only shipped 26 million iphones. Samsung sold almost twice as much as apple.
The server I'm connecting to doesn't do anything important. Actually all I do there is host my mldonkey client and web proxy, so, yeah, I just use key auth as root to that one, nothing important there.
Absolutely. The countries that would be interested in science for the sake of science, don't have big enough budgets. The countries that do are interested in war (because that's what keeps filling the right pockets). We are out of luck.
Now you are either lying, or deluding yourself. You are reading too much into it. You are reading about NCC. Of course no scientist will say "the brain did it". That's the whole point of NCC. To pinpoint which structures in the brain are responsible for which conscious thoughts. But you are doing the usual default argument religious people use: They are not being super explicit about it, therefore god. That is wrong.
Anyway, why don't you stop hiding and flat out tell us what kind of delusion is it that you have? No rational person believes that any part of our consciousness resides outside the brain. So, what is it that you believe?
Be specific, answer this short questions so I can tell how fucking crazy you are exactly:
1 - Do you believe that some part of our consciousness originates outside the body? 2 - Do you believe that consciousness continues to take place after or before death? 3 - Are you religious in any way? 4 - Are you sure your mother got you tested?
You are desperate to hear science say "we don't know", for it's in those blanks that you hide your magic universe.
There is a difference between "We don't fully understand it yet" and "we have no idea, it might as well be unicorns". We DO UNDERSTAND that all of our consciousness comes from our brains. There is no discussion there, no doubt. Ask every single biologist, every single neurologist, they'll all agree that everything we are is software running on the brain (hardware). So, haven't reverse-engineered all of the software, or all of the hardware. Sure, we haven't. That doesn't mean that we have no idea, and it doesn't mean that anything is possible, it's not a blank where you can hide a soul.
Now fuck off, and go back to watching harry potter.
I am cognizant of the fact that science isn't a replacement for metaphysics
Yes it is. And in areas where it's still not, it will be. Socrates, Aristotle, or Kant did what they could with the tools they had available, which were essentially basic observation. They all theorized in the unknown, and did their best at it. Except that is no longer the unknown. We know pretty damn well how it goes. Hero in Alexandria was the first to discover the nervous system, and the first to realize that personality resided in the brain. Greece philosophers thought consciousness came from the liver.
I'm tired of your argument, I've heard it so many times. You look for the gaps, where science can't yet explain everything, and you put there the same magical universe you enjoy so much. Ah, science can't explain other dimensions? Well, other dimensions are magic realms where your wishes become true, and nothing makes any kind of logical sense because it's all harry potter.
Fuck off. I've tried for a long time to have rational discussions with people like you. I'm tired of that, here's my new approach:
Your argument is stupid. I'm talking science, you are talking magic. Go watch harry potter and shut the fuck up.
That kind of response is the only one worthy of your stupidity.
You are the slashdot equivalent of creationists calling creationism "Intelligent design". You are taking the irreducible complexity argument and adorning it with badly applied computer jargon. It's still irreducible complexity, and it's still stupid.
So your alternative is magic. See, that's where all the arguments for anything like that fail catastrophically. We don't understand it, so it must be magic. This is the strongest argument against a god: God say let there be light, and light was created. Ok. So, he just said it. As in, he spoke out loud: "Let there be light'. And something heard him, parsed his sentence, and executed the command in some way. What is that system that hard and executed this command? Wouldn't that be the real god? But then again, nobody's explaining how that thing actually executed the command. Did it also just wish for it to happen? That is circular logic, since it would also require something else to actually fulfill the wish.
Your argument has the same problems. If for a second we agree with you that no computer could do it. Then what? Magic? The implications are even more unbelievable, and create a whole new set of issues, so we must go back and say "There must be something we overloooked, let's keep trying".
Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't give you carte blanche to invent all kinds of crazy, unsubstantiated guesses.
It ceases to exist. And it's easily proven: If you cut out part of the brain, you can notice serious changes in that person's ability to think. That person can still show us that it exists, and can show us how that part of the brain being removed affected him. In this way, we can establish a direct correlation between consciousness and gray matter, and even between parts of consciousness and parts of the brain. Therefore, it's reasonable to think that once the entire brain ceases to exist, so does all traces of consciousness. Also, Occam's razon applies here.
I find christians to be a very complex paradox. Think about it this way:
The soul is a myth, and everything we are is in our brains. Anybody with a functioning brain can't believe in a soul. But christians do believe in a soul, therefore they must lack a functioning brain. But they still walk around, so there must be something else keeping them walking, i.e: a soul.
I like to think that's not true, and they are simply zombies. That's more believable than the existence of a soul.
not enough to explain what is observable? God in the gaps? Fuck that. That kind of superstition is no better than regular religion, and it comes from the same state of mind. "Not enough to explain what is observable", so it must be magic. That's bullshit and you know it. Anybody without a deep understanding of semiconductors will think that a CPU is not enough to explain what the computer is doing, and if that person is crazy enough, he will come up with a concept similar to a CPU-soul or something like that. That doesn't mean that CPUs might have a soul, or that they are not enough to explain what a computer does, it just means the person looking at it is uneducated and prone to wishful thinking.
Immortality through some after-life like concept is impossible. First, there is no god. That's not my opinion, that is a fact. I'm not gonna go into details there, but it's been discussed enough, and every single argument for the existence of a god has been disproved. Anyone still believing in that is simply refusing to reason. So, no afterlife.
Now, immortality through human technology is inevitable. It'll happen one of two ways: Either through bio-engineering, or through some kind of memory download. I consider the later the most likely scenario. I think a lot about the concept of the last generation. Or the first one, however you want to think about it. Essentially, that generation that will be alive at the right time to see that technology be born. They will be the last generation of humans that can actually die. How that tech will change society is the realm of science fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Apple builds on top of everybody's ideas, just like everybody else. They think that is honest, and think they are entitled to borrow technology from any company because those technologies aren't shiny, and therefore are worthless. They also think it's ok to take ideas from others because they will make a "revolutionary product" with them. But when anybody else takes an idea from them, it's an outrage.
Apple took BSD, KHTML, and a lot of code and ideas from other projects with licenses permissive enough to let them do so, turned them into privative software, closed down everything, and forgot to even give credit. I actually consider them in violation of the BSD license on that point (When was the last time you saw "The regents of the university of California" mentioned anywhere in their about box?
But Apple thinks this is ok. Just like they think it was ok to steal the mouse from Xerox.
They gave Google hell for their market, as if it was Apple's idea, when it was clearly borrowed from the packets system on most GNU/Linux distro since the 90's.
Apple is absolutely full of double standards.
- Android is Free Software
- The company behind android didn't start a single patent war, all litigations have been against companies that have attacked them.
- The biggest android manufacturer, Samsung, is VERY hacker friendly, to the point where you can just boot into recovery just by holding two keys, and when you get there, they tell you that if you want you can install your own OS, and remind you that you should be careful while flashing.
- There are huge communities built around creating custom ROMs, they are all legal, and nobody has been sued.
- There are several markets available, you can install any of those, and there is an actual option that says "Allow apps from unknown sources", right there in the default android config, and after ticking it, you can just point your browser to an apk and download anything you want.
- Out of the box, you can tick a single option and get a console.
I'm not biased. What I presented is clear evidence that none of the companies behind android are fighting a copyright/patents war.
Except it's totally not the same situation. Apple has been attacking every single android manufacturer plus google itself for a very long time. This is retaliation. Somebody HAS to deal with apple. I'm not an idiot, I don't fantasize about how good and altruistic google is. It's a corporation, and it defends its interests, sure. But this move can't be considered a cold-blooded attack, it's self-defense against a patent troll who openly stated their intentions to use their every resource to destroy android.
apple fag
apple fag
reality distortion field
See the problem?
Bullshit. Samsung had 44% of Q2's Android sales, and shipped 46 million phones, while apple only shipped 26 million iphones. Samsung sold almost twice as much as apple.
The server I'm connecting to doesn't do anything important. Actually all I do there is host my mldonkey client and web proxy, so, yeah, I just use key auth as root to that one, nothing important there.
Exactly.
What I do: ssh -ND 9090 root@(my server).com
Then configure my browser to use localhost:9090 as a SOCKS proxy.
Absolutely. The countries that would be interested in science for the sake of science, don't have big enough budgets. The countries that do are interested in war (because that's what keeps filling the right pockets). We are out of luck.
That's actually the heat shield in free-fall.
All of space, including most of planet earth. Well, except for some very uneducated areas ;)
A drill to Europa? You are just gonna find a lot of dead people and France's perfume deposit.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Now you are either lying, or deluding yourself. You are reading too much into it. You are reading about NCC. Of course no scientist will say "the brain did it". That's the whole point of NCC. To pinpoint which structures in the brain are responsible for which conscious thoughts. But you are doing the usual default argument religious people use: They are not being super explicit about it, therefore god. That is wrong.
Anyway, why don't you stop hiding and flat out tell us what kind of delusion is it that you have? No rational person believes that any part of our consciousness resides outside the brain. So, what is it that you believe?
Be specific, answer this short questions so I can tell how fucking crazy you are exactly:
1 - Do you believe that some part of our consciousness originates outside the body?
2 - Do you believe that consciousness continues to take place after or before death?
3 - Are you religious in any way?
4 - Are you sure your mother got you tested?
You are desperate to hear science say "we don't know", for it's in those blanks that you hide your magic universe.
There is a difference between "We don't fully understand it yet" and "we have no idea, it might as well be unicorns". We DO UNDERSTAND that all of our consciousness comes from our brains. There is no discussion there, no doubt. Ask every single biologist, every single neurologist, they'll all agree that everything we are is software running on the brain (hardware). So, haven't reverse-engineered all of the software, or all of the hardware. Sure, we haven't. That doesn't mean that we have no idea, and it doesn't mean that anything is possible, it's not a blank where you can hide a soul.
Now fuck off, and go back to watching harry potter.
I am cognizant of the fact that science isn't a replacement for metaphysics
Yes it is. And in areas where it's still not, it will be. Socrates, Aristotle, or Kant did what they could with the tools they had available, which were essentially basic observation. They all theorized in the unknown, and did their best at it. Except that is no longer the unknown. We know pretty damn well how it goes. Hero in Alexandria was the first to discover the nervous system, and the first to realize that personality resided in the brain. Greece philosophers thought consciousness came from the liver.
I'm tired of your argument, I've heard it so many times. You look for the gaps, where science can't yet explain everything, and you put there the same magical universe you enjoy so much. Ah, science can't explain other dimensions? Well, other dimensions are magic realms where your wishes become true, and nothing makes any kind of logical sense because it's all harry potter.
Fuck off. I've tried for a long time to have rational discussions with people like you. I'm tired of that, here's my new approach:
Your argument is stupid. I'm talking science, you are talking magic. Go watch harry potter and shut the fuck up.
That kind of response is the only one worthy of your stupidity.
So, the brain is the driver to what? A magical cloud that connects wirelessly to the brain? What if we are just a tv show in magic unicorn land?
Your What-ifs have no basis on anything even remotely scientific.
It's just wishful thinking.
Sorry, I am a still somewhat active scientist
The stuff you have said completely banishes you from ever doing anything even remotely science-related.
You are the slashdot equivalent of creationists calling creationism "Intelligent design". You are taking the irreducible complexity argument and adorning it with badly applied computer jargon. It's still irreducible complexity, and it's still stupid.
So your alternative is magic. See, that's where all the arguments for anything like that fail catastrophically. We don't understand it, so it must be magic. This is the strongest argument against a god: God say let there be light, and light was created. Ok. So, he just said it. As in, he spoke out loud: "Let there be light'. And something heard him, parsed his sentence, and executed the command in some way. What is that system that hard and executed this command? Wouldn't that be the real god? But then again, nobody's explaining how that thing actually executed the command. Did it also just wish for it to happen? That is circular logic, since it would also require something else to actually fulfill the wish.
Your argument has the same problems. If for a second we agree with you that no computer could do it. Then what? Magic? The implications are even more unbelievable, and create a whole new set of issues, so we must go back and say "There must be something we overloooked, let's keep trying".
Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't give you carte blanche to invent all kinds of crazy, unsubstantiated guesses.
god in the gaps. The last refugee of delusion. Occam's razor takes care of your argument.
It ceases to exist. And it's easily proven: If you cut out part of the brain, you can notice serious changes in that person's ability to think. That person can still show us that it exists, and can show us how that part of the brain being removed affected him. In this way, we can establish a direct correlation between consciousness and gray matter, and even between parts of consciousness and parts of the brain. Therefore, it's reasonable to think that once the entire brain ceases to exist, so does all traces of consciousness. Also, Occam's razon applies here.
I find christians to be a very complex paradox. Think about it this way:
The soul is a myth, and everything we are is in our brains. Anybody with a functioning brain can't believe in a soul. But christians do believe in a soul, therefore they must lack a functioning brain. But they still walk around, so there must be something else keeping them walking, i.e: a soul.
I like to think that's not true, and they are simply zombies. That's more believable than the existence of a soul.
not enough to explain what is observable? God in the gaps? Fuck that. That kind of superstition is no better than regular religion, and it comes from the same state of mind. "Not enough to explain what is observable", so it must be magic. That's bullshit and you know it. Anybody without a deep understanding of semiconductors will think that a CPU is not enough to explain what the computer is doing, and if that person is crazy enough, he will come up with a concept similar to a CPU-soul or something like that. That doesn't mean that CPUs might have a soul, or that they are not enough to explain what a computer does, it just means the person looking at it is uneducated and prone to wishful thinking.
Immortality through some after-life like concept is impossible. First, there is no god. That's not my opinion, that is a fact. I'm not gonna go into details there, but it's been discussed enough, and every single argument for the existence of a god has been disproved. Anyone still believing in that is simply refusing to reason. So, no afterlife.
Now, immortality through human technology is inevitable. It'll happen one of two ways: Either through bio-engineering, or through some kind of memory download. I consider the later the most likely scenario. I think a lot about the concept of the last generation. Or the first one, however you want to think about it. Essentially, that generation that will be alive at the right time to see that technology be born. They will be the last generation of humans that can actually die. How that tech will change society is the realm of science fiction.
Now give me my 5 million dollars.
Agreed.