I don't know about in other States but, in Texas and Florida in a criminal case, you can be judged guilty (they decided you did it) not guilty (they decided they don't know if you did it) or innocent (they decided you didn't do it). You are judged innocent if everyone unanimously agrees that you did not commit the crime you were accused of.
Why the hell is this modded troll? This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. Does the moderator suggest that we wait until a better fuel comes out then, we decide not to buy it because it happens to be made out of corn, so instead we give away all the corn to the hungry? Why don't we skip all the research in to new fuel technology, get rid of our cars, and give the gas money we saved to the hungry to buy corn!? Don't be retarded this is a matter of simple economics.
It's trial and error revision. Just like natural selection, huh
Machines don't have genes You're right of course but, they can have analogous ideas of genes, the fact that these non-genes aren't encoded in to DNA seems trivial to me.
and they don't reproduce sexually or asexually, I suppose technically you're correct, a nonliving thing cannot sexually reproduce however, I would argue that this is a trivial point as well. With each permutation of a proper evolvable hardware device virtual organisms either mutate or combine parts of their own genetic code with parts of other organism's genetic code or, they can create new genomes in their offspring using both methods.
so it's not evolution as in Darwin's That all depends on how you define life. I believe that the lines between life and nonlife have been drawn in a completely arbitrary way. It's possible we could encounter aliens that are just as advanced as us but, they might not meet our definition of organisms/life because while they might perform all the same functions; metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction, etc. but, they might perform these processes in a different way than all the "living" things we have encountered so far. If you can concede that these lines between life and nonlife are random distinctions chosen based on what we are used to seeing and not on what's possible or makes since, then I'm sure you could concede that there is no practical difference between a "living" bacteria and, a "nonliving" perfect simulation of that bacteria. Once you have accepted this point it is easy to accept the idea of a properly made computer program as an example of Darwinian evolution at work.
(I suppose you could say they are using the more generic term that everyone uses when they talk about trial and error changes over a relatively long period of time - "dude I don't know how I made this bong so cool, it just sort of evolved - like it was destiny" lol. I can't think of an analogy between all of the possible factors involved in making the bong get so cool and all of the processes involved in evolution so, I'll admit that isn't evolution.
A good point, obviously I wouldn't protect another organism over myself or a fellow human if the organism was not clearly more advanced but, if the organism was obviously more fit I would protect it above my self or another human, maybe it wouldn't need help but by assisting the odds are better that this organism would survive. You might understand my philosophy better if I told you I would sacrifice one of the five remaining humans on earth to save all apes because I think by doing so I would be better protecting the survival of higher life forms in general and therefore life in general, including human life or at least something close to it. Let me also say that I believe intelligence is obviously a product of nature and therefore is nature. I don't think it would be unnatural for me or out of the realm of ordinary natural selection to assist another creature based on a logical decision made with my higher consciousness rather than pure instincts. I've been given the ability for higher thought so I should use it, there is no longer any reason why we should rely completely on gut instincts to insure our survival.
I agree. I cannot find any reliable source of purpose other than the purpose implied by our own design; to not become extinct, to make my species as fit as possible and, I'll continue to think that until there is any other reliable source of true purpose of human life. Where I differ from you is if there was a organism that had descended from humans but was not considered human and, it was more fit than humans, I would say we should protect it over our selves. That is because life's design in general implies to me that the purpose of life in general is to continue. The best way to insure life continues is to protect the fittest creature regardless of if it is human or not. Therefor my chief goal in life is to prioritize a life forms worth based on its fitness, weigh the economics of sacrificing one life for another based on that worth, and do or don't do actions to most effectively extend life in general based on these calculations.
I've have argued this point for years. Human thought is nothing more than a illusion of free will. At the very smallest level of being are particles that make up everything that must follow physical rules that cannot be broken, therefor with a magical computer that had knowledge of every particle of a human and all the stimulating particles around the human (indirectly every particle everywhere), all known at the exact same time, as well as knowledge of a fully unifying theory of physics, there is no reason you couldn't calculate every chemical reaction/movement/thought of the human in question. To me, when you consider this point you would have to agree that there is really no difference between a computer/computer program and a body/mind respectivly, only at this point there is no computer and computer program advanced enough to simulate humans. Although I don't find it hard to imagine a perfect simulation of a species of bacteria within a closed system would be possible within my lifetime.
Nah it's the price for me. I love having a music collection more valuable than I can afford right now. Music needs to become about an order of magnitude cheaper before I could consider going completely legal. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way.
I wont be interest until tracks are 15 cents a piece in FLAC format. Then I could afford to go legal, I would probably buy $500 worth of music in the first week. Thing is, I love having a huge variety of music, I want to have tracks that I hardly ever listen to just so I can if I'm in the mood. Right now, if I tried to purchase my mp3 collection I calculate it would cost me 54% of my yearly earnings at 1$ a song. Some of my collection is worth 1$ a song, about 1% of it. The rest of it, I probably don't hear even once a month. I'm sure half of the songs in my collection wont be listened to in any given 6 months. There is no way I could possibly afford the luxury of legitametly owning all the songs I want just in case I want to listen to them once in a long while. When I can afford this luxury I will be the music industries model customer.
Personally, I'm hoping for chemical castration... and by chemical castration I mean dipping his nuts in to a vat of some sort of highly corrosive acid.
Wow I'm impressed, hes right this dance really isn't for the faint of heart. This is a dance only for true badasses. If you can't moonwalk on one foot yet don't even attempt to perform The Electric Slide. I tried and I think I dislocated my knee. As the website says "for professional dancers only!" Here enjoy this incredible display of precisely dexterous and acrobatic skill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NZwnm6B90M
"They are totally useless, can anyone name a single thing that they do which is worthwhile?"
Off the top of my head, delegate radio frequencies and, regulate radio noise leaks from our electronics. I do agree with you though, fuck the FCC, they should stick to making sure my radio equipment's reception isn't being interfered with.
Who says? You? Out of principle of the matter I don't think that should make a difference because while that may be completely obvious to you or I, it's also arguable. Until they literally say "Hey, try using isohunt for piracy, it works great!" I think they should be treated like any other search engine.
Note however, there are convicts there serving sentences of up to one year. If you are sentenced to more than one year you are sent to a full fledged prison. That might be the source of some of your confusion.
"Hmmmmm if it is good enough for our military men and women who have died in the millions through out our history defending and winning our freedom then well it is good enough for criminals"
It's a jail not everyone there is a criminal, many people are awaiting trial.
You didn't fix the problem you just bypassed it, thats just a hack. The real solution is to install both at the same time, and it's not a bug, there is a reason they both depend on each other, read the docs and you will find out why.
What are you talking about?! We have hundreds of Dells of different types were I work and I've never seen one welded or riveted shut. I've seen rivets used in their construction but, not used to keep you from getting inside. I think you are mistaken. I know those Dells can be pretty tricky to open sometimes because they have weird case designs but given enough time I have not encountered one I could open with a screw driver or my bare-hands. Maybe I'm wrong, whats the model number on the machine your talking about?
While I agree with you about the fact it would become infected quickly and, I will admit yes it was probably infect with spyware if not a virus, this proves what? That the idea the machine was tampered with and shared the content as a result is a plausible argument but personally if I was the judge and I was honest, I would have to say it's more likely the defendent is lieing than not. People are infected with spyware and viruses all the time but, I've never seen a virus that downloads and shares music. It's the start of a good argument but without more evidence to show that any of the viruses/spyware had anything to do with the music sharing, it just doesn't hold enough water I think.
Unfortunately civil cases like this one are decided based on preponderance of evidence rather than an innocent until proven guilty sort of policy. The question will be, did this person probably download the music or is it more likely that a hacker broke in to the computer and downloaded the songs.
I don't believe anyone is saying HP should not have the right to sale computers preinstalled with Windows, only that the consumers should have the right to buy the machine with no OS if that's what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about in other States but, in Texas and Florida in a criminal case, you can be judged guilty (they decided you did it) not guilty (they decided they don't know if you did it) or innocent (they decided you didn't do it). You are judged innocent if everyone unanimously agrees that you did not commit the crime you were accused of.
Why the hell is this modded troll? This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. Does the moderator suggest that we wait until a better fuel comes out then, we decide not to buy it because it happens to be made out of corn, so instead we give away all the corn to the hungry? Why don't we skip all the research in to new fuel technology, get rid of our cars, and give the gas money we saved to the hungry to buy corn!? Don't be retarded this is a matter of simple economics.
This isn't evolution.
Sure it is.
It's trial and error revision.
Just like natural selection, huh
Machines don't have genes
You're right of course but, they can have analogous ideas of genes, the fact that these non-genes aren't encoded in to DNA seems trivial to me.
and they don't reproduce sexually or asexually,
I suppose technically you're correct, a nonliving thing cannot sexually reproduce however, I would argue that this is a trivial point as well. With each permutation of a proper evolvable hardware device virtual organisms either mutate or combine parts of their own genetic code with parts of other organism's genetic code or, they can create new genomes in their offspring using both methods.
so it's not evolution as in Darwin's
That all depends on how you define life. I believe that the lines between life and nonlife have been drawn in a completely arbitrary way. It's possible we could encounter aliens that are just as advanced as us but, they might not meet our definition of organisms/life because while they might perform all the same functions; metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction, etc. but, they might perform these processes in a different way than all the "living" things we have encountered so far. If you can concede that these lines between life and nonlife are random distinctions chosen based on what we are used to seeing and not on what's possible or makes since, then I'm sure you could concede that there is no practical difference between a "living" bacteria and, a "nonliving" perfect simulation of that bacteria. Once you have accepted this point it is easy to accept the idea of a properly made computer program as an example of Darwinian evolution at work.
(I suppose you could say they are using the more generic term that everyone uses when they talk about trial and error changes over a relatively long period of time - "dude I don't know how I made this bong so cool, it just sort of evolved - like it was destiny"
lol. I can't think of an analogy between all of the possible factors involved in making the bong get so cool and all of the processes involved in evolution so, I'll admit that isn't evolution.
A good point, obviously I wouldn't protect another organism over myself or a fellow human if the organism was not clearly more advanced but, if the organism was obviously more fit I would protect it above my self or another human, maybe it wouldn't need help but by assisting the odds are better that this organism would survive. You might understand my philosophy better if I told you I would sacrifice one of the five remaining humans on earth to save all apes because I think by doing so I would be better protecting the survival of higher life forms in general and therefore life in general, including human life or at least something close to it. Let me also say that I believe intelligence is obviously a product of nature and therefore is nature. I don't think it would be unnatural for me or out of the realm of ordinary natural selection to assist another creature based on a logical decision made with my higher consciousness rather than pure instincts. I've been given the ability for higher thought so I should use it, there is no longer any reason why we should rely completely on gut instincts to insure our survival.
I agree. I cannot find any reliable source of purpose other than the purpose implied by our own design; to not become extinct, to make my species as fit as possible and, I'll continue to think that until there is any other reliable source of true purpose of human life. Where I differ from you is if there was a organism that had descended from humans but was not considered human and, it was more fit than humans, I would say we should protect it over our selves. That is because life's design in general implies to me that the purpose of life in general is to continue. The best way to insure life continues is to protect the fittest creature regardless of if it is human or not. Therefor my chief goal in life is to prioritize a life forms worth based on its fitness, weigh the economics of sacrificing one life for another based on that worth, and do or don't do actions to most effectively extend life in general based on these calculations.
I've have argued this point for years. Human thought is nothing more than a illusion of free will. At the very smallest level of being are particles that make up everything that must follow physical rules that cannot be broken, therefor with a magical computer that had knowledge of every particle of a human and all the stimulating particles around the human (indirectly every particle everywhere), all known at the exact same time, as well as knowledge of a fully unifying theory of physics, there is no reason you couldn't calculate every chemical reaction/movement/thought of the human in question. To me, when you consider this point you would have to agree that there is really no difference between a computer/computer program and a body/mind respectivly, only at this point there is no computer and computer program advanced enough to simulate humans. Although I don't find it hard to imagine a perfect simulation of a species of bacteria within a closed system would be possible within my lifetime.
Nah it's the price for me. I love having a music collection more valuable than I can afford right now. Music needs to become about an order of magnitude cheaper before I could consider going completely legal. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way.
I wont be interest until tracks are 15 cents a piece in FLAC format. Then I could afford to go legal, I would probably buy $500 worth of music in the first week. Thing is, I love having a huge variety of music, I want to have tracks that I hardly ever listen to just so I can if I'm in the mood. Right now, if I tried to purchase my mp3 collection I calculate it would cost me 54% of my yearly earnings at 1$ a song. Some of my collection is worth 1$ a song, about 1% of it. The rest of it, I probably don't hear even once a month. I'm sure half of the songs in my collection wont be listened to in any given 6 months. There is no way I could possibly afford the luxury of legitametly owning all the songs I want just in case I want to listen to them once in a long while. When I can afford this luxury I will be the music industries model customer.
Personally, I'm hoping for chemical castration... and by chemical castration I mean dipping his nuts in to a vat of some sort of highly corrosive acid.
Wow I'm impressed, hes right this dance really isn't for the faint of heart. This is a dance only for true badasses. If you can't moonwalk on one foot yet don't even attempt to perform The Electric Slide. I tried and I think I dislocated my knee. As the website says "for professional dancers only!" Here enjoy this incredible display of precisely dexterous and acrobatic skill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NZwnm6B90M
"They are totally useless, can anyone name a single thing that they do which is worthwhile?"
Off the top of my head, delegate radio frequencies and, regulate radio noise leaks from our electronics. I do agree with you though, fuck the FCC, they should stick to making sure my radio equipment's reception isn't being interfered with.
Perhaps they don't wont to be seen as escaping the reach of the law but, also realize that US law is not an option for them.
Who says? You? Out of principle of the matter I don't think that should make a difference because while that may be completely obvious to you or I, it's also arguable. Until they literally say "Hey, try using isohunt for piracy, it works great!" I think they should be treated like any other search engine.
No, it's a jail.
t y.22:_Maricopa_County_Jail_Modification.2C_Phoenix .2C_AZ.
http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_City#.22Tent_Ci
Note however, there are convicts there serving sentences of up to one year. If you are sentenced to more than one year you are sent to a full fledged prison. That might be the source of some of your confusion.
"Hmmmmm if it is good enough for our military men and women who have died in the millions through out our history defending and winning our freedom then well it is good enough for criminals"
It's a jail not everyone there is a criminal, many people are awaiting trial.
You didn't fix the problem you just bypassed it, thats just a hack. The real solution is to install both at the same time, and it's not a bug, there is a reason they both depend on each other, read the docs and you will find out why.
That is not a bug, refer to the documentation it's not a hard problem to solve. Try something like 'emerge cups && emerge xorg', problem solved.
What are you talking about?! We have hundreds of Dells of different types were I work and I've never seen one welded or riveted shut. I've seen rivets used in their construction but, not used to keep you from getting inside. I think you are mistaken. I know those Dells can be pretty tricky to open sometimes because they have weird case designs but given enough time I have not encountered one I could open with a screw driver or my bare-hands. Maybe I'm wrong, whats the model number on the machine your talking about?
Moot point, im not saying its impossible, or unlikely, just that they did what the riaa said is more likely.
While I agree with you about the fact it would become infected quickly and, I will admit yes it was probably infect with spyware if not a virus, this proves what? That the idea the machine was tampered with and shared the content as a result is a plausible argument but personally if I was the judge and I was honest, I would have to say it's more likely the defendent is lieing than not. People are infected with spyware and viruses all the time but, I've never seen a virus that downloads and shares music. It's the start of a good argument but without more evidence to show that any of the viruses/spyware had anything to do with the music sharing, it just doesn't hold enough water I think.
Unfortunately civil cases like this one are decided based on preponderance of evidence rather than an innocent until proven guilty sort of policy. The question will be, did this person probably download the music or is it more likely that a hacker broke in to the computer and downloaded the songs.
Yes really, read the thing.
I don't believe anyone is saying HP should not have the right to sale computers preinstalled with Windows, only that the consumers should have the right to buy the machine with no OS if that's what they want.
Never thats a violation of Microsofts EULA