Just to expand on the notion of 'continuity' a little.
In a child post someone used an example of a computer, where over time each part is replaced, and then asked the question, is it the same computer?
Well, here's a more accurate way of presenting that question: 'Consciousness' is 'continuity' of your neural network. If we had the technology, we could replace individual neurons with artificial equivalents, and providing that the rest of the network continued to function as we did this you would remain alive, and the same person. If doing this caused death, you would be no longer.
Expanding this to the computer analogy: if you have a simulation of a neural network running on a computer, and could replace parts of the computer without ending the neural network, it would remain the same 'entity'. The hardware isn't all that important, but the software needs continuity.
However, this doesn't answer everything. With a computer we can store the contents of the RAM onto a hard-disk, transfer that disk to another computer, load the contents of the RAM back in and continue the simulation. But, we could also image the disk and continue running it in the original computer. We now have two simulations, so which one is the real one? Did the original continue to be 'alive' or not? If not, when did it 'die'?
These questions have been pondered in one form or another by philosophers for eons, and we're not going to be able to answer it on/..
Someone also mentioned the good old '21 Grams' myth (when you die you lose 21 grams of weight which is the soul). Well, Google it. It's completely without any scientific foundation.
CDs, DVDs and downloaded content all have their place. Sure, I download music all the time (and pay for it), and would do the same with film if it were available.
However, when I find a gem - something I really love - I'll still fork over the cash for a physical copy of the item. It's worth owning a DVD or CD for the artwork and inserts that come with it, but even more so, it's something to collect and display. It's no different than books - I first read 1984 and Neuromancer online and subsequently purchased both.
Perhaps nobody will buy bad movies on DVD anymore as they've seen it online and been unimpressed, but I'd say that's a good thing.
Of course Apple has every right to punish him, but what kind of punishment is fair? Ruining his life seems overzealous.
Apple wasn't hurt financially or otherwise from his actions. That doesn't make what he did okay, but it should be considered when determining the fairness of the punishment they want to dish out.
IMHO it would be much more appropriate for Apple to settle this out of court. They could request some form of monetary compensation (an amount that will stretch the finances but not lead to ruin), then have their marketing department portray desicanuk as an example, with a warning that next time they won't be so compassionate. This keeps the community happy, Apple's good-will thriving and doesn't ruin desicanuk's life.
Family First is most definently a right-wing party with conservative values. They have no chance at holding any power in our house of representatives, however in this coming election they will have a real chance at gaining power in the senate.
The sad reason for this is that we have been sold out by what is normally a left-wing, progressive party (the Democrats) who has chose Family First as the recipient of their first-choice preferences.
We now have only one major, 'progressive' party left - the Australian Greens. They're the only one yet to sell us out, and also have a real chance at gaining significant representation in the senate.
To illustrate just how conservative Family First is - they are opposed to gay and lesbian marriages/adoption, they are anti-abortion, their members are even appointed by the church rather than through a vote.
It's going to be a scary election - we risk having Liberal voted back in, and if Family First, along with the Liberals hold the balance of power in the senate, we're screwed. The senate will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for our right-wing conservative Government (here, as ironic as it seems, the "Liberal" party is far from liberal in the progressive, libertarian sense of the term - at least on social issues).
... and you're making the assumption that if sexual orientation is not genetically determined then a gay man or lesbian has no preference over who they have sex with.
I'm sure that you like some foods, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some movies, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some holiday destinations, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some musical artists, but not others.
My point is, even if nature is not the determinant, nurture is just as powerful. As a gay male, I can tell you that regardless of the nature/nurture debate, it's pointless for me to try to have sexual intercourse with a female. The prospect simply doesn't arouse me. This is not true for everyone that engages in same-sex relationships - the homosexualheterosexual definition is one big continuum.
To summarise, different people have different likes/dislikes. If the likes/dislikes in question are not hurting anyone, the government has absolutely no right to create legislatation that limits the freedom of individuals with them particular preferences. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined or a product of nurture is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to expand on the notion of 'continuity' a little.
In a child post someone used an example of a computer, where over time each part is replaced, and then asked the question, is it the same computer?
Well, here's a more accurate way of presenting that question: 'Consciousness' is 'continuity' of your neural network. If we had the technology, we could replace individual neurons with artificial equivalents, and providing that the rest of the network continued to function as we did this you would remain alive, and the same person. If doing this caused death, you would be no longer.
Expanding this to the computer analogy: if you have a simulation of a neural network running on a computer, and could replace parts of the computer without ending the neural network, it would remain the same 'entity'. The hardware isn't all that important, but the software needs continuity.
However, this doesn't answer everything. With a computer we can store the contents of the RAM onto a hard-disk, transfer that disk to another computer, load the contents of the RAM back in and continue the simulation. But, we could also image the disk and continue running it in the original computer. We now have two simulations, so which one is the real one? Did the original continue to be 'alive' or not? If not, when did it 'die'?
These questions have been pondered in one form or another by philosophers for eons, and we're not going to be able to answer it on /..
Someone also mentioned the good old '21 Grams' myth (when you die you lose 21 grams of weight which is the soul). Well, Google it. It's completely without any scientific foundation.
CDs, DVDs and downloaded content all have their place. Sure, I download music all the time (and pay for it), and would do the same with film if it were available.
However, when I find a gem - something I really love - I'll still fork over the cash for a physical copy of the item. It's worth owning a DVD or CD for the artwork and inserts that come with it, but even more so, it's something to collect and display. It's no different than books - I first read 1984 and Neuromancer online and subsequently purchased both.
Perhaps nobody will buy bad movies on DVD anymore as they've seen it online and been unimpressed, but I'd say that's a good thing.
Of course Apple has every right to punish him, but what kind of punishment is fair? Ruining his life seems overzealous.
Apple wasn't hurt financially or otherwise from his actions. That doesn't make what he did okay, but it should be considered when determining the fairness of the punishment they want to dish out.
IMHO it would be much more appropriate for Apple to settle this out of court. They could request some form of monetary compensation (an amount that will stretch the finances but not lead to ruin), then have their marketing department portray desicanuk as an example, with a warning that next time they won't be so compassionate. This keeps the community happy, Apple's good-will thriving and doesn't ruin desicanuk's life.
Have a read of the following statements from the Ultracade website:
http://www.ultracade.com/mame.pdf
http://www.ultracade.com/openoffer.pdf
Sounds like it was either a false rumor or the bad publicity changed their attitute Ultraquick.
Family First is most definently a right-wing party with conservative values. They have no chance at holding any power in our house of representatives, however in this coming election they will have a real chance at gaining power in the senate.
The sad reason for this is that we have been sold out by what is normally a left-wing, progressive party (the Democrats) who has chose Family First as the recipient of their first-choice preferences.
We now have only one major, 'progressive' party left - the Australian Greens. They're the only one yet to sell us out, and also have a real chance at gaining significant representation in the senate.
To illustrate just how conservative Family First is - they are opposed to gay and lesbian marriages/adoption, they are anti-abortion, their members are even appointed by the church rather than through a vote.
It's going to be a scary election - we risk having Liberal voted back in, and if Family First, along with the Liberals hold the balance of power in the senate, we're screwed. The senate will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for our right-wing conservative Government (here, as ironic as it seems, the "Liberal" party is far from liberal in the progressive, libertarian sense of the term - at least on social issues).
... and you're making the assumption that if sexual orientation is not genetically determined then a gay man or lesbian has no preference over who they have sex with.
I'm sure that you like some foods, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some movies, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some holiday destinations, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some musical artists, but not others.
My point is, even if nature is not the determinant, nurture is just as powerful. As a gay male, I can tell you that regardless of the nature/nurture debate, it's pointless for me to try to have sexual intercourse with a female. The prospect simply doesn't arouse me. This is not true for everyone that engages in same-sex relationships - the homosexualheterosexual definition is one big continuum.
To summarise, different people have different likes/dislikes. If the likes/dislikes in question are not hurting anyone, the government has absolutely no right to create legislatation that limits the freedom of individuals with them particular preferences. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined or a product of nurture is irrelevant.