No, it has the value we attribute it with. As a concept, it has intrinsic utility, but that's not the same as value. Food has intrinsic value because you can eat it. Wood has intrinsic value because you can build a house out of it. Money only has value if other people also believe it has value. No one has to believe food is edible, or that wood is a good building material. Do you see how these things are different?
Unless you're saying I'm wrong because money has intrinsic value as a piece of cloth, then you're totally missing my point. If that is what you're saying, though, then you're clearly a jackass.
I'm not arguing that money can't be used to buy things or that it isn't essential in the modern world, I'm just supporting the argument that it has no intrinsic value, which it doesn't.
Money has no intrinsic value. It only stands for what you want to imagine it stands for. If ildon chooses to ignore that artificial construct, arguing that your construct is "real" doesn't make little green pieces of cloth any more valuable to him.
Probably because the content creators were uncomfortable with it, as they might imagine that it could potentially provide a route to more easily bypass DRM.
Doesn't that also mean that solar radiation is a cheap and abundant source of power? Is there the possibility of a surface-based Dyson-Harrop type system?
Netflix does not work with Moonlight at this time. While Moonlight supports all of the UI and media playback infrastructure, it lacks DRM support which Netflix requires.
We've been purely Netflix since before they had streaming. I've never been upset on missing out on "Jersey Shore" and the like. I can't imagine wasting money on a television subscription now. Netflix is great for my 2 year old, who loves Backyardigans, Arthur, Busytown, Blues Clues, Barney, Go Diego Go, as well as any number of movies. Watching any episode he feels like watching of any show any time without those brain-washing commercials is great. Plus, we have total control of his media consumption, and can limit or provide as we see appropriate. The only thing missing is that the breadth of shows, while already larger than what I imagine you'd have available from a television network, doesn't include eccentricities such as Bill Nye, Magic School Bus or Imagination Movers. Of course, that's what Netflix DVDs are for...
That probably not true. Social Security will likely be exhausted by 2037, in a large part due to the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The only thing you have to look forward to in your old age is a long wait in the bread lines.
The problem is that it's utterly unusable on Windows. Heck, when I load it I have to minimize all my other windows just to bring it to the front. Cross compatibility is much more important than appealing to people who use uncommon window focus settings.
Actually, I heard that the new Gimp is actually going to make the whole thing one window. Maybe I'll be able to use it without losing the stupid toolbox, or having to close the layers window just to see the darn image.
That's not nearly enough generations. It'd be more like 6,000 greats. How are you going to bring enough food for all those people? How are you going to provide capacity for sufficient genetic diversity to prevent them from becoming as inbred as the royal family?
I say we don't send anything to another solar system until we have a high level of confidence that ships leaving after it won't get there first.
Good thing you didn't read the last line of the summary before posting this, or else you wouldn't have been able to make it to first post... oh, wait...
You might be surprised how many conversations at the proverbial water cooler center on some new television ad campaign. Of course, it's often easy to waylay those into more interesting topics, such as honey badgers.
Amongst this community in particular, it often seems like the RIAA are doing quite well making up losses by suing grandmothers and school children, but in reality they've already lost. It really hits you when the measure of Rebecca Black's success is that she's climbing the iTunes charts instead of Billboard. The RIAA isn't going the way of the dinosaurs, they're already gone.
On the one hand, I like the variety and time-independence of modern media consumption methods (Netflix, Hulu, TPB), but on the other hand I feel sometimes I'm missing out on a shared cultural experience with respect to commercials. On the gripping hand, my only complaint is not seeing commercials.
Even once we think they are comprehending, they still won't.
How can you prove that humans comprehend anything and aren't just really convincingly passing a constant Turing test? You can't say a convincing simulation of comprehension is distinctly different from actual comprehension unless you can test the difference. Thus the idea of a Turing test: a perfect simulation of comprehension is comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it has the value we attribute it with. As a concept, it has intrinsic utility, but that's not the same as value. Food has intrinsic value because you can eat it. Wood has intrinsic value because you can build a house out of it. Money only has value if other people also believe it has value. No one has to believe food is edible, or that wood is a good building material. Do you see how these things are different?
Unless you're saying I'm wrong because money has intrinsic value as a piece of cloth, then you're totally missing my point. If that is what you're saying, though, then you're clearly a jackass.
I'm not arguing that money can't be used to buy things or that it isn't essential in the modern world, I'm just supporting the argument that it has no intrinsic value, which it doesn't.
The real planet-consuming aliens in Independence Day were... us!
Money has no intrinsic value. It only stands for what you want to imagine it stands for. If ildon chooses to ignore that artificial construct, arguing that your construct is "real" doesn't make little green pieces of cloth any more valuable to him.
How about telling your representatives what you think?
Yes, but not on the side you seem to be suggesting.
Probably because the content creators were uncomfortable with it, as they might imagine that it could potentially provide a route to more easily bypass DRM.
Doesn't that also mean that solar radiation is a cheap and abundant source of power? Is there the possibility of a surface-based Dyson-Harrop type system?
Netflix does not work with Moonlight at this time. While Moonlight supports all of the UI and media playback infrastructure, it lacks DRM support which Netflix requires.
- Moonlight - Frequenctly Asked Questions
I find Justin.TV is a great source for sports coverage as it has actual television networks.
We've been purely Netflix since before they had streaming. I've never been upset on missing out on "Jersey Shore" and the like. I can't imagine wasting money on a television subscription now. Netflix is great for my 2 year old, who loves Backyardigans, Arthur, Busytown, Blues Clues, Barney, Go Diego Go, as well as any number of movies. Watching any episode he feels like watching of any show any time without those brain-washing commercials is great. Plus, we have total control of his media consumption, and can limit or provide as we see appropriate. The only thing missing is that the breadth of shows, while already larger than what I imagine you'd have available from a television network, doesn't include eccentricities such as Bill Nye, Magic School Bus or Imagination Movers. Of course, that's what Netflix DVDs are for...
That probably not true. Social Security will likely be exhausted by 2037, in a large part due to the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The only thing you have to look forward to in your old age is a long wait in the bread lines.
What legitimate reason would a company ever have to text children? And why would you allow more companies than friends?
The problem is that it's utterly unusable on Windows. Heck, when I load it I have to minimize all my other windows just to bring it to the front. Cross compatibility is much more important than appealing to people who use uncommon window focus settings.
Actually, I heard that the new Gimp is actually going to make the whole thing one window. Maybe I'll be able to use it without losing the stupid toolbox, or having to close the layers window just to see the darn image.
That's not nearly enough generations. It'd be more like 6,000 greats. How are you going to bring enough food for all those people? How are you going to provide capacity for sufficient genetic diversity to prevent them from becoming as inbred as the royal family?
I say we don't send anything to another solar system until we have a high level of confidence that ships leaving after it won't get there first.
Karma farmer alert! Parent replies to his own fake accounts to garner positive karma! Check Goatse links in parents and UIDs of both!
I'm fairly certain the answer is never. The worst part is they're, like, $200 each. Take that iPad, am I right?
Good thing you didn't read the last line of the summary before posting this, or else you wouldn't have been able to make it to first post... oh, wait...
Don't be absurd. That kind of reasoning can only lead to absurdities like a patent system, or a copyright system.
You might be surprised how many conversations at the proverbial water cooler center on some new television ad campaign. Of course, it's often easy to waylay those into more interesting topics, such as honey badgers.
+1 Perspective!
Amongst this community in particular, it often seems like the RIAA are doing quite well making up losses by suing grandmothers and school children, but in reality they've already lost. It really hits you when the measure of Rebecca Black's success is that she's climbing the iTunes charts instead of Billboard. The RIAA isn't going the way of the dinosaurs, they're already gone.
On the one hand, I like the variety and time-independence of modern media consumption methods (Netflix, Hulu, TPB), but on the other hand I feel sometimes I'm missing out on a shared cultural experience with respect to commercials. On the gripping hand, my only complaint is not seeing commercials.
Even once we think they are comprehending, they still won't.
How can you prove that humans comprehend anything and aren't just really convincingly passing a constant Turing test? You can't say a convincing simulation of comprehension is distinctly different from actual comprehension unless you can test the difference. Thus the idea of a Turing test: a perfect simulation of comprehension is comprehension.
You give humans too much credit.