Yes...because so many of your precious tax dollars went to the 5 seconds it took to think to put Virgil's maxim on a pretty little picture. One can only imagine the dire cost of that emblem...oh, the humanity!
Ahh. Right you are. Though I don't suppose a business is actually defined by making money. (There have been plenty that haven't.) So if he doesn't charge for the service, he could still technically be considered a business. And fine, if he isn't a business, he could always incorporate. (Maybe we should ask our other friend who gave me a paragraph definition on what a corporation is without addressing my post whatsoever?) As for the TOS, that's a separate issue entirely. His TOS may let him use his account that way, depending on what internet service he has. Maybe in this case the TOS does not allow such use, but as for his strategy in general, it could work. One could find a service that does allow such behavior, I'm sure they exist, or we could all just start demanding an ISP that checks then dumps its logs daily...eventually if enough people asked somebody would be happy to charge us lots of money for it...either way a step towards anonymity IMHO.
According to American law, a corporation is an individual; if a law applies to a corporation, it applies to any individual acting in a similar manner as such a corporation. Therefore, he is a common carrier.
Re:Gotta love the 21th Century
on
Nano Body Building
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"21th"...maybe we should improve our schools before we improve everything else. What good will it do us to live hundreds of years if we still have children who think "21th" is a word? Perhaps nanotechnology can improve education as well. (No, I don't mean reusable paper, better databases, or e-learning, as suggested by Mulhall...I mean a real improvements in the learning process.) I do, however, recommend Our Molecular Future, the book mentioned in the article. While it is a bit presumptuous, it's a rather fascinating read.
Those X10 Camera pop-ups are annoying as hell...but my boss just purchased some for surveillance of his business. I hate to admit it, but they work great. I suppose that's evidence that if a product is really useful, people will still buy it no matter what the company's ad tactics are like.
Nietzsche lived from 1844-1900. 140 years ago would put that at 1864. His early writings were not published until 1872. Just thought you might want to know...and...count maybe? Any good History of his life will also say that he did not begin serious philisophical writing until close to 1870.
That's absolutely rediculous. Expecting employees to never need to make calls is assuming a whole lot. 1. You assume that the nature of the business is to have no contact with the outside world. I don't know any business models that can make money and manage to do that. If you do, please let us know.:-) 2. You assume employees never need (and should never) make personal calls during business hours. That's also rediculous. Disallowing employees to contact their families is a large inconvenience to them, one that will not only lower morale but also lead to many people quiting. If an employee performs well, who cares if he calls his family during work hours? Phone calls are relatively inexpensive. Most Fortune 500 companies spend far more on client calls to China and Japan in a month than they ever spend on personal calls in several years.
What about concepts we talk about every day, like justice? Many subjectivists are all too ready to admit that if something isn't physical, made of atoms, it doesn't exist. Physically, that may be true. I could argue with until I'm blue in the face on the point, but a practical example would serve much better. If I raped your mother, stole your car, and mugged you, you can be damn sure you'd call the police. Why? Because you sense a violation of your personhood--you feel it's unjust. Justice is a concept, an abstract, but you accept every day that it exists. You might be tempted to call such feelings as justice mere "chemical imbalances," but if you were to do so, you would logically have to accept that any feeling of violation is not really anything more than chemicals, allowing anybody to do whatever they'd like to you. If you're ready to admit there's no such thing as justice, let us all know--we'll be sure to track you down and take things from your house.
To further the argument that concepts exist, I'll pose another question and try to answer it from what I believe would be your point of view. What are ideas? I'll assume we both agree that ideas exist--if they didn't this discussion would be rather difficult. I argue that they're concepts. You, being (from what I can tell) a materialist, would likely say that an idea is only a biological function of 'higher animals,' i.e. humans. You'd say an idea exists as electrical signals in the brain., received through the senses. But how would we discuss justice? You can't see justice. You can't feel it. You can't sense it at all, at least not with the five senses. Yet you have an idea of what it is. If you want to go with a strictly materialistic philosophy, all concepts exist as chemi-electrical signals in the brain, so they exist. If you insist, they may be merely a special arrangement of atoms, but they exist.
But just because you can talk about something doesn't mean it exists. For example, what about your pet elephant? I'm discussing it now, but it has never existed.
Just for clarity's sake, I'd like to specifically answer this. If I were to talk about my obviously non-existent pet elephant, it clearly wouldn't exist. But the concept of such a creature would. I'm not saying the creature itself exists. I'm saying the idea, the concept, does. You seem to be entirely missing the point.
Isn't nearly enough for the sex video! But seriously, I think this is a very cool idea. My only worry is that these will be quickly banned from public places the way camera phones have been. Interestingly enough, devices like this make it easy for anyone to commit espionage, take pictures in public rest rooms and the like, or spy on people or organizations. I wonder when the government will decide that you need a liscense for one of these, too...
It seems rather clear to me that abstracts exist. Obviously not in the physical sense, but they must exist. If they did not, we would have very little basis for calling two similar (but obviously different) objects the same. For example, if I saw two animals and had no abstract of what an animal was, how could I say it was an animal? If one was a dog and the other a cat, how could I differentiate unless I had some preconceived notion of what a dog was? Furthermore, if I saw a species of dog which I had never seen before and had no idea existed, how would I still know it was a dog without some abstract conception of what a dog is? Arguably, an individual thing, such as a particular dog, has potentiality (the potential to exist in reality) while an abstract always exists in reality, on the basis that it needs to physical status to exist.
This could be applied to the question of AI and chess as well. Since it would seem practically impossible for any person or machine to hold all the possible (or abstract) variations on a chess game, there must be some way we arrive at 'new' undiscovered ways of playing. I would assume this to be something that chess programs tend not to use, behaving randomly. When faced with a decision, a human will often choose randomly or emotionally, possibly choosing what would seem a poorer choice. A chess program, especially one that is playing a particularly talented human opponent, would likely not suspect such acts, instead 'thinking' the opponent would behave in the most logical way possible. How we could teach computers intuition is anybody's guess.
just think this problem could be avoided if we increased the speed limit? I don't know about you, but I really don't think we all need to drive 35mph on a 4 lane road with no houses on it...yet there are plenty of those around. 55 on a highway? In nebraska it's 80. Then again, Chicago traffic sucks and there are plenty of soccer mom's in the 'burbs, so maybe I'm just bitter.
I think the battle centers more on the fact that both consoles and PCs have aspired to be catch-alls. Consoles (many of them, anyway), play DVDs and now have multiplayer support. But computers do a lot more besides just gamming...and, with the flexibility PCs provide (not with any real sacrifice in graphics or gamming, IMHO,) they will eventually win out. If only we saw a better market for PC controllers more similar to the ones used in consol gaming.
About time somebody did something useful. Not like eBay has done anything. With problems like this running rampant over eBay, I wonder what kind of future the company has. Many users are already abandoning the service in favor of other means of purchase. I think people have realized that eBay, with scams, high shipping costs, and long waiting periods before getting a product, is often more expensive and less convenient than just purchasing the product at the store.
They already have a monopoly on operating systems, messengers, and now they want to take control on search engines
Messengers? Ever heard of...oh, I dunno...AOL IM, ICQ, Yahoo, IRC, and catch-alls like Trillian and DeadAIM? Last time I checked MSN Messenger was NOT a monopoly...especially since it's a free program anyway. M$ may have a huge monopoly in some areas, but let's point fingers where there's actually a problem, shall we? Not to mention the fact that nobody would actually switch from Google (which certainly now has the closest thing to a monopoly in that area) to an M$ search engine unless M$ had a better product...in which case, they deserve to have more users.
It's a very interesting idea that the govt. is considering P2P technology as a way to share information...what a turnaround from their RIAA-hand-holding policy. (Sure, I'm a little biased). But more importantly, despite these security measures, I wonder how insecure our data will be. And how many more government employees will have access to it. One things for sure, they'd better make damn sure this system is safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Only government would want new technology this fast, maybe your NSA, that around codebreaking.
Only the government would want it? Hell, I'd want it! Who wouldn't?
Hah! Try telling that to all the overweight, mp3 touting nerds on slashdot!
Yes...because so many of your precious tax dollars went to the 5 seconds it took to think to put Virgil's maxim on a pretty little picture. One can only imagine the dire cost of that emblem...oh, the humanity!
Ahh. Right you are. Though I don't suppose a business is actually defined by making money. (There have been plenty that haven't.) So if he doesn't charge for the service, he could still technically be considered a business. And fine, if he isn't a business, he could always incorporate. (Maybe we should ask our other friend who gave me a paragraph definition on what a corporation is without addressing my post whatsoever?) As for the TOS, that's a separate issue entirely. His TOS may let him use his account that way, depending on what internet service he has. Maybe in this case the TOS does not allow such use, but as for his strategy in general, it could work. One could find a service that does allow such behavior, I'm sure they exist, or we could all just start demanding an ISP that checks then dumps its logs daily...eventually if enough people asked somebody would be happy to charge us lots of money for it...either way a step towards anonymity IMHO.
According to American law, a corporation is an individual; if a law applies to a corporation, it applies to any individual acting in a similar manner as such a corporation. Therefore, he is a common carrier.
"21th"...maybe we should improve our schools before we improve everything else. What good will it do us to live hundreds of years if we still have children who think "21th" is a word? Perhaps nanotechnology can improve education as well. (No, I don't mean reusable paper, better databases, or e-learning, as suggested by Mulhall...I mean a real improvements in the learning process.) I do, however, recommend Our Molecular Future, the book mentioned in the article. While it is a bit presumptuous, it's a rather fascinating read.
Bit torrent anybody? www.bittorrent.com (yes we all know there are better clients and suprnova.org.
Those X10 Camera pop-ups are annoying as hell...but my boss just purchased some for surveillance of his business. I hate to admit it, but they work great. I suppose that's evidence that if a product is really useful, people will still buy it no matter what the company's ad tactics are like.
Nietzsche lived from 1844-1900. 140 years ago would put that at 1864. His early writings were not published until 1872. Just thought you might want to know...and...count maybe? Any good History of his life will also say that he did not begin serious philisophical writing until close to 1870.
That's absolutely rediculous. Expecting employees to never need to make calls is assuming a whole lot. 1. You assume that the nature of the business is to have no contact with the outside world. I don't know any business models that can make money and manage to do that. If you do, please let us know. :-) 2. You assume employees never need (and should never) make personal calls during business hours. That's also rediculous. Disallowing employees to contact their families is a large inconvenience to them, one that will not only lower morale but also lead to many people quiting. If an employee performs well, who cares if he calls his family during work hours? Phone calls are relatively inexpensive. Most Fortune 500 companies spend far more on client calls to China and Japan in a month than they ever spend on personal calls in several years.
-1 Troll does not mean -1 Disagree.
Damn right. Then again, if Microsoft made them, they probably wouldn't take care of their customer's as well as apple seems to be doing.
About Apple's products never having problems?
YEAY!...Now I can look even stupider when I visit other places and take meaningless film I'll never watch again.
Assholes and stupid people run your government.
Example: George Bush
To further the argument that concepts exist, I'll pose another question and try to answer it from what I believe would be your point of view. What are ideas? I'll assume we both agree that ideas exist--if they didn't this discussion would be rather difficult. I argue that they're concepts. You, being (from what I can tell) a materialist, would likely say that an idea is only a biological function of 'higher animals,' i.e. humans. You'd say an idea exists as electrical signals in the brain., received through the senses. But how would we discuss justice? You can't see justice. You can't feel it. You can't sense it at all, at least not with the five senses. Yet you have an idea of what it is. If you want to go with a strictly materialistic philosophy, all concepts exist as chemi-electrical signals in the brain, so they exist. If you insist, they may be merely a special arrangement of atoms, but they exist.
But just because you can talk about something doesn't mean it exists. For example, what about your pet elephant? I'm discussing it now, but it has never existed.
Just for clarity's sake, I'd like to specifically answer this. If I were to talk about my obviously non-existent pet elephant, it clearly wouldn't exist. But the concept of such a creature would. I'm not saying the creature itself exists. I'm saying the idea, the concept, does. You seem to be entirely missing the point.
They haven't heard of /.
Isn't nearly enough for the sex video! But seriously, I think this is a very cool idea. My only worry is that these will be quickly banned from public places the way camera phones have been. Interestingly enough, devices like this make it easy for anyone to commit espionage, take pictures in public rest rooms and the like, or spy on people or organizations. I wonder when the government will decide that you need a liscense for one of these, too...
It seems rather clear to me that abstracts exist. Obviously not in the physical sense, but they must exist. If they did not, we would have very little basis for calling two similar (but obviously different) objects the same. For example, if I saw two animals and had no abstract of what an animal was, how could I say it was an animal? If one was a dog and the other a cat, how could I differentiate unless I had some preconceived notion of what a dog was? Furthermore, if I saw a species of dog which I had never seen before and had no idea existed, how would I still know it was a dog without some abstract conception of what a dog is? Arguably, an individual thing, such as a particular dog, has potentiality (the potential to exist in reality) while an abstract always exists in reality, on the basis that it needs to physical status to exist. This could be applied to the question of AI and chess as well. Since it would seem practically impossible for any person or machine to hold all the possible (or abstract) variations on a chess game, there must be some way we arrive at 'new' undiscovered ways of playing. I would assume this to be something that chess programs tend not to use, behaving randomly. When faced with a decision, a human will often choose randomly or emotionally, possibly choosing what would seem a poorer choice. A chess program, especially one that is playing a particularly talented human opponent, would likely not suspect such acts, instead 'thinking' the opponent would behave in the most logical way possible. How we could teach computers intuition is anybody's guess.
just think this problem could be avoided if we increased the speed limit? I don't know about you, but I really don't think we all need to drive 35mph on a 4 lane road with no houses on it...yet there are plenty of those around. 55 on a highway? In nebraska it's 80. Then again, Chicago traffic sucks and there are plenty of soccer mom's in the 'burbs, so maybe I'm just bitter.
I think the battle centers more on the fact that both consoles and PCs have aspired to be catch-alls. Consoles (many of them, anyway), play DVDs and now have multiplayer support. But computers do a lot more besides just gamming...and, with the flexibility PCs provide (not with any real sacrifice in graphics or gamming, IMHO,) they will eventually win out. If only we saw a better market for PC controllers more similar to the ones used in consol gaming.
About time somebody did something useful. Not like eBay has done anything. With problems like this running rampant over eBay, I wonder what kind of future the company has. Many users are already abandoning the service in favor of other means of purchase. I think people have realized that eBay, with scams, high shipping costs, and long waiting periods before getting a product, is often more expensive and less convenient than just purchasing the product at the store.
They already have a monopoly on operating systems, messengers, and now they want to take control on search engines Messengers? Ever heard of...oh, I dunno...AOL IM, ICQ, Yahoo, IRC, and catch-alls like Trillian and DeadAIM? Last time I checked MSN Messenger was NOT a monopoly...especially since it's a free program anyway. M$ may have a huge monopoly in some areas, but let's point fingers where there's actually a problem, shall we? Not to mention the fact that nobody would actually switch from Google (which certainly now has the closest thing to a monopoly in that area) to an M$ search engine unless M$ had a better product...in which case, they deserve to have more users.
Everyone is biased.
It's a very interesting idea that the govt. is considering P2P technology as a way to share information...what a turnaround from their RIAA-hand-holding policy. (Sure, I'm a little biased). But more importantly, despite these security measures, I wonder how insecure our data will be. And how many more government employees will have access to it. One things for sure, they'd better make damn sure this system is safe.