While I do agree with some points on your original list, all too often that kind of argument stems more from a lack of thought into larger consequences of laws and the wishes of other people than from any real insight into oppression.
To sum up the problem: How are you defining what "harm" is? Would other people agree with your definition?
I don't think any government bigger than a community government should restrict anything that doesn't harm anyone (or have potential for very significant harm... building a nuke in your garage doesn't harm anyone, but the potential's pretty significant). I don't think any government, period, should restrict anything that happens inside your home, with the same caveat as above.
So you're still not letting people do what they want, if you're stopping them from building a nuke in their basement. You're still drawing a line, saying "you can do this, but you can't do that".
So you agree that certain actions should not be allowed. You can no longer argue that people should be free to do what they want, because you don't want to allow that. You're basically back to arguing for each individual action whether it should or should not be allowed.
Several of your original examples easily fall under your "potential for very significant harm". It is only if you do not bother to follow the larger consequences of actions on a societal level that you would not see that.
Actually Linux users are just as forced to upgrade, if not more so, than Windows users. Linux distros tend to go out of support far quicker than Windows versions.
Who's talking about a cure? Other than quacks trying to sell people false hope?
you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results.
You are familiar with the placebo effect, I would hope.
You also seem to be discounting placebo effect. Placebo effect can be very powerful, and I'm sure you can find some cases where a person was "cured" with a placebo.
I guess you are. And you know why I discount it? Because it relies on lying to the patient and having them believe you. This is not a reliable method to cure anyone of anything. It might work, or then again, it might not. You can't control what the patient believes, and thus you can't reliably use the placebo effect.
And of course it has nothing to do with "natural medicine" in the first place. Giving people salt water injections or sugar pills can work just as well, depending on what the patient believes in.
It's a known fact that marijuana lessens the negative side effects of cancer treatment, for example.
Sure, getting high makes anything feel better. That's hardly a secret to anyone, inside or outside the medical profession. I'm sure doctors would be happy to prescribe it in certain cases if they were allowed to do so, but that's a matter of politics and not medical science.
They are ostracised because they are nutcases and/or quacks who produce no results, but profit from selling people false hope and placebo effect.
You seem to imply that it is somehow hypocritical to use one natural remedy but not another, but the difference is that this one works while the other ones don't.
Very long. The EU actually has a functioning democratic system with checks and balances on powers to prevent that kind of thing from happening. This may seem strange to those who are not used to it, but it is actually the case, and it works fairly well.
I had not really noticed it being much different from Firefox on other platforms.
That is the problem. Mac apps are not supposed to be identical to apps on other platforms. Mac apps have their own interface guidelines, and Firefox breaks them left and right and stands out like a sore thumb.
The point I am trying to make is not whether or not the "process design" in physics is good or bad.
The point is that you are applying the metaphor of "process design" to thing it was never meant to apply to. Learning more about the scientific method and how it applies in those areas would serve you much better.
Computer Science is hardly a good vantage point to judge the rest of science from. It's mostly a little bit of maths and a little bit of engineering mashed together.
What you apparently need to do is find out a bit about how science works outside your own field.
It has already been stated several times, but as it is kind of being drowned out by the noise, I will add my voice to the chorus:
Waveform collapse is not relative to the observer!
It might seem like it should be, because it is slightly more intuitive that way, but it is not. This is very important.
Your explanation is entirely incorrect, and you're kind of doing a disservice to those who read it an think they now understand QM a bit more, when in fact you have just led them further astray.
You are confusing the Standard Model with Quantum Mechanics, but as they are pretty closely related let's ignore that for now.
The thing is, nobody believes the Standard Model is a final, stable thoery. It is glaringly incomplete in that it does not include gravity. It is simply the best model we have for a subset of problems, and thus it is used until somebody finally figures out something better.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you are too dumb to think up an online voting system that can't be fooled by a botnet, doesn't mean everyone else is.
Slashdot "editors" do not "edit" submissions. This makes Slashdot "more real", according to CmdrTaco.
o ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#145024 84
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&thresh
While I do agree with some points on your original list, all too often that kind of argument stems more from a lack of thought into larger consequences of laws and the wishes of other people than from any real insight into oppression.
To sum up the problem: How are you defining what "harm" is? Would other people agree with your definition?
Ignore the other nutters. The real explanation is that "Your Rights Online" is short for "Your Rights".
I don't think any government bigger than a community government should restrict anything that doesn't harm anyone (or have potential for very significant harm... building a nuke in your garage doesn't harm anyone, but the potential's pretty significant). I don't think any government, period, should restrict anything that happens inside your home, with the same caveat as above.
So you're still not letting people do what they want, if you're stopping them from building a nuke in their basement. You're still drawing a line, saying "you can do this, but you can't do that".
So you agree that certain actions should not be allowed. You can no longer argue that people should be free to do what they want, because you don't want to allow that. You're basically back to arguing for each individual action whether it should or should not be allowed.
Several of your original examples easily fall under your "potential for very significant harm". It is only if you do not bother to follow the larger consequences of actions on a societal level that you would not see that.
Because you can't bring a desktop with you into the classroom.
Bernard cells are Bernard cells. They don't appear on their own, and their shape is caused by the fact that there are many of them.
ssh? a commandline on a Mac??? Say it isn't so.
Man, welcome to THE YEAR 2000 already.
You don't... see... any anti-MS people?
You're somehow managing to navigate the threads and reply to posts without actually reading anything in here?
Actually Linux users are just as forced to upgrade, if not more so, than Windows users. Linux distros tend to go out of support far quicker than Windows versions.
That doesn't sound much like a cure to me.
Who's talking about a cure? Other than quacks trying to sell people false hope?
you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results.
You are familiar with the placebo effect, I would hope.
You also seem to be discounting placebo effect. Placebo effect can be very powerful, and I'm sure you can find some cases where a person was "cured" with a placebo.
I guess you are. And you know why I discount it? Because it relies on lying to the patient and having them believe you. This is not a reliable method to cure anyone of anything. It might work, or then again, it might not. You can't control what the patient believes, and thus you can't reliably use the placebo effect.
And of course it has nothing to do with "natural medicine" in the first place. Giving people salt water injections or sugar pills can work just as well, depending on what the patient believes in.
It's a known fact that marijuana lessens the negative side effects of cancer treatment, for example.
Sure, getting high makes anything feel better. That's hardly a secret to anyone, inside or outside the medical profession. I'm sure doctors would be happy to prescribe it in certain cases if they were allowed to do so, but that's a matter of politics and not medical science.
Yes, obviously the SHEEP can't UNDERSTAND your UTTER BRILLIANCE.
...what?
They are ostracised because they are nutcases and/or quacks who produce no results, but profit from selling people false hope and placebo effect.
You seem to imply that it is somehow hypocritical to use one natural remedy but not another, but the difference is that this one works while the other ones don't.
You've never managed a snappy comeback, have you?
In short, you have absolutely nothing to say, but you are very certain that you are smarter than everyone else?
Very long. The EU actually has a functioning democratic system with checks and balances on powers to prevent that kind of thing from happening. This may seem strange to those who are not used to it, but it is actually the case, and it works fairly well.
I'm sorry, but you're really just reinforcing my belief that you need to broaden your horizons here.
I had not really noticed it being much different from Firefox on other platforms.
That is the problem. Mac apps are not supposed to be identical to apps on other platforms. Mac apps have their own interface guidelines, and Firefox breaks them left and right and stands out like a sore thumb.
The point I am trying to make is not whether or not the "process design" in physics is good or bad.
The point is that you are applying the metaphor of "process design" to thing it was never meant to apply to. Learning more about the scientific method and how it applies in those areas would serve you much better.
And it is with an eye for a hammer that every problem looks like a nail.
Computer Science is hardly a good vantage point to judge the rest of science from. It's mostly a little bit of maths and a little bit of engineering mashed together.
What you apparently need to do is find out a bit about how science works outside your own field.
His point is wrong. Waveform collapse is not relative to the observer.
It might seem more intuitive if it was relative, but it isn't.
It has already been stated several times, but as it is kind of being drowned out by the noise, I will add my voice to the chorus:
Waveform collapse is not relative to the observer!
It might seem like it should be, because it is slightly more intuitive that way, but it is not. This is very important.
Your explanation is entirely incorrect, and you're kind of doing a disservice to those who read it an think they now understand QM a bit more, when in fact you have just led them further astray.
You are confusing the Standard Model with Quantum Mechanics, but as they are pretty closely related let's ignore that for now.
The thing is, nobody believes the Standard Model is a final, stable thoery. It is glaringly incomplete in that it does not include gravity. It is simply the best model we have for a subset of problems, and thus it is used until somebody finally figures out something better.