Okay, seriously: no, it is not. Copyright infringement is not theft. "Piracy," in the sense you're using the word, is not theft. And anyone who says it is has shown that they have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.
That would be a straw man. The grandparent didn't claim it was theft. He claimed it was stealing. I checked a couple of online dictionaries, and they all contain something like this:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Clearly, the grandparent feel someone is appropriating words or music without right.
You are completely right about the missing apostrophe; however, that rule is so unintuitive that I'll forgive anyone for giving it a miss:)
Personally, I am no fan of the current copyright situation, but that is a separate matter.
No. True is simply a value we assign to a fact. The only constraint is that it is logically consistent with the remaining true facts.
Objectivity and fact are synonyms. Something that is objective has a truth value that is irrespective of anyone's perceptions or beliefs. A for absolute scale, it depends on what is being discussed-- if it is "existence", the scale is "exists" or "does not exist". Some things have scale with more shades inbetween.
Obviously, because such "facts" as you call them, comes from our (presumably) shared experience of the world. We call them facts because we can measure them, or deduct them from something we can measure. Of course, "facts" might change, either because our world changes, because our measurements changes, or because our deduction techniques changes. E.g, some times ago a number of religious beliefs (say, Jesus's revival) were considered facts, but today we know it not to be so.
But you are saying that evil is defined on a relative, subjective scale, and denying that there is any higher authority to which one could appeal for such an objective scale.
Of course. Doing otherwise would be insane.
The problem remains that you cannot call your own personal beliefs "true" while asserting that they are subjective. Either they are true, or they are not, and truth is NOT subjective.
You got it backwards. We do not instinctively know something is evil because the act is evil; rather an act is evil because we instinctively find it evil.
You can argue that that means that what is evil changes over time, and indeed, this is the case. E.g, the old testament has a lot of stories where one of the many gods therein ordered "his" people to do mass murder and genocides. Such an act might not have been considered evil then, but it certainly is now. I don't know why that bothers people.
The witch is violated. No one sane can call that act anything but evil, given what we know today.
The only thing that makes earthquakes "not evil" is that no one can prevent them. If you are in a position where you cost-free can prevent and earth-quake, not doing so is certainly evil. And an omnipotent and omniscient god is by definition an entity which could do so.
Whether an event is evil depends on the viewers in question. E.g, I find censoring evil, but not everyone do so. This extends to groups in the obvious manner.
Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book.
And here is the grave error in your argument. True is a word that implies an objectivity;
No. True is simply a value we assign to a fact. The only constraint is that it is logically consistent with the remaining true facts.
objectivity requires an absolute scale.
It doesn't matter since your argument has already collapsed, but which objectivity do you mean here? The philosophical reaction to rationalism, or perhaps scientific objectivity?
But you are saying that evil is defined on a relative, subjective scale, and denying that there is any higher authority to which one could appeal for such an objective scale.
Of course. Doing otherwise would be insane.
Care to clarify how this all works out?
That should be obvious, at least on an instinctive level. Almost every human have a instinct that tells them what is evil and what is not. Note that it doesn't matter for the argument what the exact definition is: As long as evil exists, god (as omnipresent,omnipotent,good) is logically impossible.
It took me three lines to spot your first grave mistake in an argument. "Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil". Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book. So is torturing alleged heretics, burning witches and a number of other acts. All those acts are more than plentiful evil enough to support the "you cannot have such events in the world,.together with an good, omnipotent and omniscient god".
Besides which, "evil" in this argument doesn't really need to be evil, just obviously bad for humans. Earthquakes, tsunamis and even ice storms comes under that heading.
Destroying the arguments of religious types is easy as stealing candy from children, but more fun and less objectionable:)
I understand how it works, I use btrfs for fun to make disposable chroots, which is useful (though LVM would give me nearly identical results). Besides moving, there is also the hardlink problem... hardlinks cannot cross fs boundaries. Important for e.g. backups and git repositories.
Not having to worry about the pool is cool, and certainly a step up from LVM, but IMHO not nearly compelling enough, especially considering that btrfs is on the way to fix that feature.
Thanks for the explanation about deduplication. Not as cool as I had hoped, but suppose real life is often that way
As for hardlinks, I was thinking specifically about backups, which are managed by a backup system. I never write to files in the backup (that would not make sense), so that is a non-issue, and that makes the system very, very simple and very effective. In the general case, deduplication is of course easier, but as I get from you, seldom worth the effort. With modern disk drives being so big, size tends to take 2nd place to speed or reliability in most cases.
Sure, but several file systems have drawbacks too. I'd prefer file systems that let me specify such features at the directory level instead.
Breaking chroot for non-root users are not exactly trivial, though I don't personally use chroot for that...I use it (as the GP suggested) for scratch areas, especially for building and testing applications under different environments.
You will always hear more complaints from Linux users. That is a price for having easy installers. But aside from unsupported hardware, I haven't had a problem with sound since the debacle around pulseaudio (which got enabled a bit prematurely imho. But works fine now.)
As for running root as chroot: That is not a usecase I saw, nor one I have ever missed. From wikipedia jails falls in somewhere between a virtualized server and a chroot. *shrug* Certainly not a game changer, and a short google search reveals some linux alternatives.
The reason I prefer to not have multiple filesystem is so that my backups can use hardlinks, I can move files between say/tmp and my/home without actually moving the data, and so that I don't have to bother thinking about it. I cannot get that today, because there is no way to encrypt part of a file system (or deduplicate etc, though I just use hardlinks for that. Easier to understand, less error-prone.) Creating a new filesystem takes me about a minute: I waste a lot more time (order of magnitudes) waiting for just moves between filessystems (even if I only use 2) than I ever did for creating filesystems. Sure, it is cool, and I think it is fun doing it with btrfs, but it's not really very useful.
As for btrfs... I use it for snapshots. Why? Because I can. LVM would likely serve me just as well, but I like to play with new things. The data being snapshots, I don't care how stable it is, but it seems to work:) The remaining feature ZFS has are not compelling enough for me to bother installing even a test of it (with fuser, I think it is on linux).
P.S: Why don't you deduplicate everything? That sounds like there is a significant downside?
The locking of/dev/dsp is mostly ancient history at this point, even on Linux, where sound (finally) got the attention it needs. And now it actually handles multiple sounds cards (moving the sound around and stuff like that), which is nice if you are using an usb-headset and speakers, depending on the situation.
I use schroot for the usecase you use ezjail for, and from your short note it looks mostly equivalent. I tend to use either a btrfs or lvm backend.
As for creating new filesystems, I find that mostly a bother; what I want is just one filesystem to handle it all. Currently, I find I need 2 to handle my needs, which is annoying (one encrypted, one not). Snapshots are useful though (and supported by LVM and btrfs).
It's because we are measuring a very tiny part of a large system. E.g, we are not measuring the temperature of the oceans (a bit, but not a lot). The heat contents of the oceans are pretty massive, so there is some potential for heat to move around and mess with the data. That is why it is usually 30-year means that are used.
Also note that 12-years is cherry-picking: 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, and not a good basis to gauge other years against. Check out the graph, if you please --- no one could call 1998 a representative year.
The electricity in the grid could also come from fission, wind or water. Especially wind+hydrogen is interesting, as hydrogen could function as the a buffer demand to soak up extra wind power in times of high winds.
Amazing how far selective quotations can get you, isn't it? You left out the sentence that immediately followed - that wasn't an accident.
I asked you to point out which of 1-7 was false, and you pointed to 4. I didn't leave off anything relevant on purpose, trust me, I read it several times not believe anyone could claim something that outrageous.
(4) is not false - and I have not claimed it is. It is simply too weak to support the claim that you wanted to support, which is that a certain event necessarily leads to inflation.
another straw man. I have only said it increased inflation (or decreased deflation). Why do you find it necessary to create these straw men?
I have tried to make it increasingly obvious in the last few posts that my position is that it may or may not lead to inflation, and can in fact also lead to better real economic outcomes (via growth and increased employment) - it depends on the circumstances.
Because the straw men annoy. The above is an empty statement... P=>(Q or not Q). If you mean that the set of condition where an increase of the supply of money increase the economy is non-empty, why don't you give an example?
Perhaps you're taking things too personal. Who knows. So I'm going to just disengage from the discussion now, no matter what you write next (if anything). That's probably better for both our sanity.
You are continuing your straw man arguments, and I have had enough of that. Not once have you actually answered the point I made, (...)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Where the hell did you even get the idea that I claim that "increased demand does not increase prices, everything else being equal" (*)?
The stuff you quote was irrelevant. You are continuing your straw man arguments, and I have had enough of that. Not once have you actually answered the point I made, but instead kept talking about your fantasy economy theory, arguing against or for various theories I did not state. This is exactly the same that happens if you try to debate climate denialists. or evolution denialists. And frankly, I don't care for that style.
Anyways, as I wrote, if you do not recognize basic economic theory (increased demand raises prices, e.g), then of course you will end up supporting some wacko fringe theory.
So basically you are saying that increased demand does not increase prices, everything else being equal. That is in contradiction with empirical evidence. Case closed.
Slashdot Mirror
its stealing either way
Okay, seriously: no, it is not. Copyright infringement is not theft. "Piracy," in the sense you're using the word, is not theft. And anyone who says it is has shown that they have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.
That would be a straw man. The grandparent didn't claim it was theft. He claimed it was stealing. I checked a couple of online dictionaries, and they all contain something like this:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Clearly, the grandparent feel someone is appropriating words or music without right.
You are completely right about the missing apostrophe; however, that rule is so unintuitive that I'll forgive anyone for giving it a miss :)
Personally, I am no fan of the current copyright situation, but that is a separate matter.
No. True is simply a value we assign to a fact. The only constraint is that it is logically consistent with the remaining true facts.
Objectivity and fact are synonyms. Something that is objective has a truth value that is irrespective of anyone's perceptions or beliefs. A for absolute scale, it depends on what is being discussed-- if it is "existence", the scale is "exists" or "does not exist". Some things have scale with more shades inbetween.
Obviously, because such "facts" as you call them, comes from our (presumably) shared experience of the world. We call them facts because we can measure them, or deduct them from something we can measure. Of course, "facts" might change, either because our world changes, because our measurements changes, or because our deduction techniques changes. E.g, some times ago a number of religious beliefs (say, Jesus's revival) were considered facts, but today we know it not to be so.
But you are saying that evil is defined on a relative, subjective scale, and denying that there is any higher authority to which one could appeal for such an objective scale.
Of course. Doing otherwise would be insane.
The problem remains that you cannot call your own personal beliefs "true" while asserting that they are subjective. Either they are true, or they are not, and truth is NOT subjective.
You got it backwards. We do not instinctively know something is evil because the act is evil; rather an act is evil because we instinctively find it evil.
You can argue that that means that what is evil changes over time, and indeed, this is the case. E.g, the old testament has a lot of stories where one of the many gods therein ordered "his" people to do mass murder and genocides. Such an act might not have been considered evil then, but it certainly is now. I don't know why that bothers people.
The witch is violated. No one sane can call that act anything but evil, given what we know today.
The only thing that makes earthquakes "not evil" is that no one can prevent them. If you are in a position where you cost-free can prevent and earth-quake, not doing so is certainly evil. And an omnipotent and omniscient god is by definition an entity which could do so.
Whether an event is evil depends on the viewers in question. E.g, I find censoring evil, but not everyone do so. This extends to groups in the obvious manner.
Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book.
And here is the grave error in your argument. True is a word that implies an objectivity;
No. True is simply a value we assign to a fact. The only constraint is that it is logically consistent with the remaining true facts.
objectivity requires an absolute scale.
It doesn't matter since your argument has already collapsed, but which objectivity do you mean here? The philosophical reaction to rationalism, or perhaps scientific objectivity?
But you are saying that evil is defined on a relative, subjective scale, and denying that there is any higher authority to which one could appeal for such an objective scale.
Of course. Doing otherwise would be insane.
Care to clarify how this all works out?
That should be obvious, at least on an instinctive level. Almost every human have a instinct that tells them what is evil and what is not. Note that it doesn't matter for the argument what the exact definition is: As long as evil exists, god (as omnipresent,omnipotent,good) is logically impossible.
It took me three lines to spot your first grave mistake in an argument. "Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil". Certainly you can, it is just a matter of definition. Say, trying to scare small kiddies with hell if they don't believe is "true evil" in my book. So is torturing alleged heretics, burning witches and a number of other acts. All those acts are more than plentiful evil enough to support the "you cannot have such events in the world, .together with an good, omnipotent and omniscient god".
Besides which, "evil" in this argument doesn't really need to be evil, just obviously bad for humans. Earthquakes, tsunamis and even ice storms comes under that heading.
Destroying the arguments of religious types is easy as stealing candy from children, but more fun and less objectionable :)
Apart from that test below the image saying: "Image for illustrative purposes only".
Apart from illustration, what purpose could an image server? Art? Help out in text flow? ;)
Fine! Import some chinese labour. Or Indian.
But actually I doubt your tenet of not enough people. It doesn't take that much labor to farm, and that is labor is declining as well.
So toss it from starboard and port airlock, alternately. Or better yet, toss it off the stern.
How about exports and imports? Russia exports grain, imports electronics, grain, art, whatever? Is that definitely ruled out? ;)
It is unlikely that Jesus, if he existed, were born in the winter. See e.g. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/jesus.asp .
I bought and installed Dungeons of Dredmor (which is a fun game, if you like that sort of thing), and it both installs and run through Desura.
I understand how it works, I use btrfs for fun to make disposable chroots, which is useful (though LVM would give me nearly identical results). Besides moving, there is also the hardlink problem... hardlinks cannot cross fs boundaries. Important for e.g. backups and git repositories.
Not having to worry about the pool is cool, and certainly a step up from LVM, but IMHO not nearly compelling enough, especially considering that btrfs is on the way to fix that feature.
Thanks for the explanation about deduplication. Not as cool as I had hoped, but suppose real life is often that way
As for hardlinks, I was thinking specifically about backups, which are managed by a backup system. I never write to files in the backup (that would not make sense), so that is a non-issue, and that makes the system very, very simple and very effective. In the general case, deduplication is of course easier, but as I get from you, seldom worth the effort. With modern disk drives being so big, size tends to take 2nd place to speed or reliability in most cases.
Sure, but several file systems have drawbacks too. I'd prefer file systems that let me specify such features at the directory level instead.
Breaking chroot for non-root users are not exactly trivial, though I don't personally use chroot for that.. .I use it (as the GP suggested) for scratch areas, especially for building and testing applications under different environments.
I seem to have touched a nerve :)
You will always hear more complaints from Linux users. That is a price for having easy installers. But aside from unsupported hardware, I haven't had a problem with sound since the debacle around pulseaudio (which got enabled a bit prematurely imho. But works fine now.)
As for running root as chroot: That is not a usecase I saw, nor one I have ever missed. From wikipedia jails falls in somewhere between a virtualized server and a chroot. *shrug* Certainly not a game changer, and a short google search reveals some linux alternatives.
The reason I prefer to not have multiple filesystem is so that my backups can use hardlinks, I can move files between say /tmp and my /home without actually moving the data, and so that I don't have to bother thinking about it. I cannot get that today, because there is no way to encrypt part of a file system (or deduplicate etc, though I just use hardlinks for that. Easier to understand, less error-prone.) Creating a new filesystem takes me about a minute: I waste a lot more time (order of magnitudes) waiting for just moves between filessystems (even if I only use 2) than I ever did for creating filesystems. Sure, it is cool, and I think it is fun doing it with btrfs, but it's not really very useful.
As for btrfs... I use it for snapshots. Why? Because I can. LVM would likely serve me just as well, but I like to play with new things. The data being snapshots, I don't care how stable it is, but it seems to work :) The remaining feature ZFS has are not compelling enough for me to bother installing even a test of it (with fuser, I think it is on linux).
P.S: Why don't you deduplicate everything? That sounds like there is a significant downside?
A few points:
The locking of /dev/dsp is mostly ancient history at this point, even on Linux, where sound (finally) got the attention it needs. And now it actually handles multiple sounds cards (moving the sound around and stuff like that), which is nice if you are using an usb-headset and speakers, depending on the situation.
I use schroot for the usecase you use ezjail for, and from your short note it looks mostly equivalent. I tend to use either a btrfs or lvm backend.
As for creating new filesystems, I find that mostly a bother; what I want is just one filesystem to handle it all. Currently, I find I need 2 to handle my needs, which is annoying (one encrypted, one not). Snapshots are useful though (and supported by LVM and btrfs).
It's because we are measuring a very tiny part of a large system. E.g, we are not measuring the temperature of the oceans (a bit, but not a lot). The heat contents of the oceans are pretty massive, so there is some potential for heat to move around and mess with the data. That is why it is usually 30-year means that are used.
Also note that 12-years is cherry-picking: 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, and not a good basis to gauge other years against. Check out the graph, if you please --- no one could call 1998 a representative year.
I am sure that the current +0.6-0.8K degrees really makes a huge difference whether it will snow in October ;)
Interestingly, spreadsheets does make non-programmers program, to some degree. Someday, I will understand why that is.
Besides the other points, (ice) comets are raining water on us constantly.
The electricity in the grid could also come from fission, wind or water. Especially wind+hydrogen is interesting, as hydrogen could function as the a buffer demand to soak up extra wind power in times of high winds.
Amazing how far selective quotations can get you, isn't it? You left out the sentence that immediately followed - that wasn't an accident.
I asked you to point out which of 1-7 was false, and you pointed to 4. I didn't leave off anything relevant on purpose, trust me, I read it several times not believe anyone could claim something that outrageous.
(4) is not false - and I have not claimed it is. It is simply too weak to support the claim that you wanted to support, which is that a certain event necessarily leads to inflation.
another straw man. I have only said it increased inflation (or decreased deflation). Why do you find it necessary to create these straw men?
I have tried to make it increasingly obvious in the last few posts that my position is that it may or may not lead to inflation, and can in fact also lead to better real economic outcomes (via growth and increased employment) - it depends on the circumstances.
Because the straw men annoy. The above is an empty statement... P=>(Q or not Q). If you mean that the set of condition where an increase of the supply of money increase the economy is non-empty, why don't you give an example?
Perhaps you're taking things too personal. Who knows. So I'm going to just disengage from the discussion now, no matter what you write next (if anything). That's probably better for both our sanity.
Try to leave off the straw men :)
You are continuing your straw man arguments, and I have had enough of that. Not once have you actually answered the point I made, (...)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Where the hell did you even get the idea that I claim that "increased demand does not increase prices, everything else being equal" (*)?
Well, let me quote then.
4. Increased demand tends to increase prices.
This is the weak link of your argument.
I.e, (4) is false.
The stuff you quote was irrelevant. You are continuing your straw man arguments, and I have had enough of that. Not once have you actually answered the point I made, but instead kept talking about your fantasy economy theory, arguing against or for various theories I did not state. This is exactly the same that happens if you try to debate climate denialists. or evolution denialists. And frankly, I don't care for that style.
Anyways, as I wrote, if you do not recognize basic economic theory (increased demand raises prices, e.g), then of course you will end up supporting some wacko fringe theory.
So basically you are saying that increased demand does not increase prices, everything else being equal. That is in contradiction with empirical evidence. Case closed.