It's an explanation without explanation. A spiraling argument of ignorance. What created the intelligent designer? Using just the reasoning of ID, it can be none other than another more intelligent designer. But this one, just like the first, requires a creator. Obviously this must be another more intelligent designer. There's no end of them. Each one more intelligent than the last. The most intelligent of which is always without any explanation.
How is teaching ID improving that situation? ID is not a scientific theory. If you include ID in science then you open up a whole pasta dish of equally valid and different theories.
If it's illegal to not provide the police with a key to encrypted data, why can't they just put that person in prison for that crime and decrypt the data at their leisure?
Shadows can go faster than the speed of light. An object making such a shadow can't go faster; but its shadow can. If you look at a shadow like that, going from east to west, you find (from Special Relativity) that in other reference frames it will appear to go west to east (or travel backwards in time). Note that even though the shadow is traveling faster than the speed of light, it's casual effect never does (the object making the shadow).
In this case though it might be a case of people not seeing how something can go faster than a maximum speed. The alternative to a maximum speed is an infinite speed. Special Relativity can be seen as a consequence of the existance of a maximum speed in nature (and widely regarded as an accurate one). Any inertialess (massless) particle, like light, would travel at this speed. So, in other words, the maximum speed is that of light in a vacuum.
Now consider what anything faster would imply: It either implies that the maximum speed doesn't exist (inertialess particles travel with infinite speed) or that the maximum speed is higher (and therefore light must have some inertia).
Also, and as far as I am aware, it's impossible to measure changes in the speed of light. Regardless of what it is; all physical effects remain identical. Consider that any measurements using meters and seconds will always agree with a constant value because we define the speed of light and don't measure it. The assumption here is that there is nothing in nature that can provide a better benchmark.
Most of Einstein's mail was probably from a crackpot claiming Relativity was a hoax and that in all the months he'd been writing to Einstein, Einstein hadn't provided a reply he liked.
The c is only there because of the different units. If you don't mind measuring energy and mass in the same units (and any unit of mass or energy will do, provided you stick to just one) then Einstein's equation becomes even simpler and its meaning clearer.
E = m
c is normally defined as 299792458 m/s. But people also define it more simply as 1. As you've noticed, doing it this way is much more natural to relativistic domains (but obviously not to everyday experience).
Yes, interesting AND correct. For examples, from dictionary.com
Take
"To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice,"
also
"To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit"
Both of these examples prove my definition correct. While there are many possible definitions, mine is perfectly acceptable.
I said it was interesting and unusual. I didn't say it was incorrect.
And a question, how does one get so called "stolen" music if they don't take it? Do they have it sent to them? Does it magically appear on their computer? I think you see what I'm getting at here.
They create a copy.
"The specific definition of theft (in English) is the dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently."
No, that's ONE definition of theft. Please don't try to generalize one definition of a word into the only definition of that word.
The most commone definitions I've seen refer back to stealing, and those definitions are often pretty broad.
Some examples
to steal (stole, stolen)
1. to take something from somebody against their will
2. to move, carry, or place surreptitiously
3. to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully (this is the one downloaders should be concerned about)
4. to draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer
5. to copy something without permission (He stole my credit card number.)(this one too)
6. (baseball) to advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch
7. to move silently or secretly
Those are not my definitions. They are mostly from dictionary.com, with some from wiktionary as well.
The definition I used was just the most authoritative one and it only applies to (English) English. It's the one I used in my post, so you should use that one with regard to my own post; unless you want to turn the debate into a semantic game.
I think the point people who are trying to turn this debate into a semantic game need to realize is that arguing that it is not "theft" is a stupid, unnecessary red herring, and is almost certainly false. Not because they aren't correct with their logic, but because the English language is so flexible. That flexibility allows for definitions of words where previously there were none, and for definitions of words that are often counter-intuitive.
Of course some people will use words merely to confuse as they can't use more reasonable debate to support their ideas. This is why people are arguing over the use of the word 'theft' and 'stealing'.
Ultimately I don't care about pinning down what the process of downloading "stolen" music is called, but relying on the accuracy of the English language to win the debate for you is a pretty foolish thing to do.
You should stop quoting definitions of the English language if you think that.
The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT. Wouldn't it make more sense for GMT to be based on New York (the center of the World Financial System and headquarters of the United Nations)?
You want Greenwich Mean Time to be based in New York? It always seemed to make more sense to be based in Greenwich.
Since, we've decided to resort to pedantry, it was taken AND the owner still has it.
That's an interesting use of the word 'taken'. More usually, if something is taken, the owner wouldn't still have it: You'd have it instead.
Now, since the definition of theft isn't "and by taking deprives the owner of use" your statement doesn't really hold.
The specific definition of theft (in English) is the "dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently.".
2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.
If it is intellectual property then it wasn't taken: The owner still has it.
It's obviously disingenuous to talk of music theft (it's copyright infringement as you say) when people really mean theft of income. It's also wrong to claim a demonstrated value for all copies from a few sales. I've thrown CDs away: This doesn't demonstrate that all of the other copies have no value. The price can be set by the copyright holder. If this is higher than its value then the simply solution is not to buy it.
One way to waterproof a box of matches is to pour melted wax into the box and wait for it to set. When you need a match, just pick one out (The rest, naturally, remain waterproof in case you drop the box.) and rub off the wax.
No one forced anyone to connect to other networks. But connecting different networks is essentially what the internet is. The alternative would be someone's very own intranet. If the US disconnected tomorrow (something I certainly wouldn't want), the internet would carry on without it. The internet is larger than any one country.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they could. But they'd have to find the active volcanoes to know for sure.
Even intelligent design is an explanation.
It's an explanation without explanation. A spiraling argument of ignorance. What created the intelligent designer? Using just the reasoning of ID, it can be none other than another more intelligent designer. But this one, just like the first, requires a creator. Obviously this must be another more intelligent designer. There's no end of them. Each one more intelligent than the last. The most intelligent of which is always without any explanation.
What makes you think that truth can be supernatural? Isn't all truth natural by definition?
Tell one side of a story?
How is teaching ID improving that situation? ID is not a scientific theory. If you include ID in science then you open up a whole pasta dish of equally valid and different theories.
If it's illegal to not provide the police with a key to encrypted data, why can't they just put that person in prison for that crime and decrypt the data at their leisure?
Shadows can go faster than the speed of light. An object making such a shadow can't go faster; but its shadow can. If you look at a shadow like that, going from east to west, you find (from Special Relativity) that in other reference frames it will appear to go west to east (or travel backwards in time). Note that even though the shadow is traveling faster than the speed of light, it's casual effect never does (the object making the shadow).
Raising the speed of light is easy: Just redefine it to be more than 300,000 km/s.
In this case though it might be a case of people not seeing how something can go faster than a maximum speed. The alternative to a maximum speed is an infinite speed. Special Relativity can be seen as a consequence of the existance of a maximum speed in nature (and widely regarded as an accurate one). Any inertialess (massless) particle, like light, would travel at this speed. So, in other words, the maximum speed is that of light in a vacuum.
Now consider what anything faster would imply: It either implies that the maximum speed doesn't exist (inertialess particles travel with infinite speed) or that the maximum speed is higher (and therefore light must have some inertia).
Also, and as far as I am aware, it's impossible to measure changes in the speed of light. Regardless of what it is; all physical effects remain identical. Consider that any measurements using meters and seconds will always agree with a constant value because we define the speed of light and don't measure it. The assumption here is that there is nothing in nature that can provide a better benchmark.
and now that I think of it, bounded below, either
Going below zero brightness would be pointless, if not absurd.
You've mistaken intelligent design for a scientific theory.
Most of Einstein's mail was probably from a crackpot claiming Relativity was a hoax and that in all the months he'd been writing to Einstein, Einstein hadn't provided a reply he liked.
Who wants to be 40 anyways?
It's better than the alternative.
The real question is who uses a pillow for 20 years. That fungus could be older than your kids.
Hmmmm, I really need to buy some new pillows...
...but it only works for spherical horses moving in a vacuum.
0. They can be a vector for malicious software (e.g. 180solutions).
The c is only there because of the different units. If you don't mind measuring energy and mass in the same units (and any unit of mass or energy will do, provided you stick to just one) then Einstein's equation becomes even simpler and its meaning clearer.
E = m
c is normally defined as 299792458 m/s. But people also define it more simply as 1. As you've noticed, doing it this way is much more natural to relativistic domains (but obviously not to everyday experience).
Yes, interesting AND correct. For examples, from dictionary.com Take "To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice," also "To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit" Both of these examples prove my definition correct. While there are many possible definitions, mine is perfectly acceptable.
I said it was interesting and unusual. I didn't say it was incorrect.
And a question, how does one get so called "stolen" music if they don't take it? Do they have it sent to them? Does it magically appear on their computer? I think you see what I'm getting at here.
They create a copy.
"The specific definition of theft (in English) is the dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently." No, that's ONE definition of theft. Please don't try to generalize one definition of a word into the only definition of that word. The most commone definitions I've seen refer back to stealing, and those definitions are often pretty broad. Some examples to steal (stole, stolen) 1. to take something from somebody against their will 2. to move, carry, or place surreptitiously 3. to get or effect surreptitiously or artfully (this is the one downloaders should be concerned about) 4. to draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer 5. to copy something without permission (He stole my credit card number.)(this one too) 6. (baseball) to advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch 7. to move silently or secretly Those are not my definitions. They are mostly from dictionary.com, with some from wiktionary as well.
The definition I used was just the most authoritative one and it only applies to (English) English. It's the one I used in my post, so you should use that one with regard to my own post; unless you want to turn the debate into a semantic game.
I think the point people who are trying to turn this debate into a semantic game need to realize is that arguing that it is not "theft" is a stupid, unnecessary red herring, and is almost certainly false. Not because they aren't correct with their logic, but because the English language is so flexible. That flexibility allows for definitions of words where previously there were none, and for definitions of words that are often counter-intuitive.
Of course some people will use words merely to confuse as they can't use more reasonable debate to support their ideas. This is why people are arguing over the use of the word 'theft' and 'stealing'.
Ultimately I don't care about pinning down what the process of downloading "stolen" music is called, but relying on the accuracy of the English language to win the debate for you is a pretty foolish thing to do.
You should stop quoting definitions of the English language if you think that.
The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT. Wouldn't it make more sense for GMT to be based on New York (the center of the World Financial System and headquarters of the United Nations)?
You want Greenwich Mean Time to be based in New York? It always seemed to make more sense to be based in Greenwich.
Since, we've decided to resort to pedantry, it was taken AND the owner still has it.
That's an interesting use of the word 'taken'. More usually, if something is taken, the owner wouldn't still have it: You'd have it instead.
Now, since the definition of theft isn't "and by taking deprives the owner of use" your statement doesn't really hold.
The specific definition of theft (in English) is the "dishonest appropriation of another's property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently.".
2)Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.
If it is intellectual property then it wasn't taken: The owner still has it.
It's obviously disingenuous to talk of music theft (it's copyright infringement as you say) when people really mean theft of income. It's also wrong to claim a demonstrated value for all copies from a few sales. I've thrown CDs away: This doesn't demonstrate that all of the other copies have no value. The price can be set by the copyright holder. If this is higher than its value then the simply solution is not to buy it.
One way to waterproof a box of matches is to pour melted wax into the box and wait for it to set. When you need a match, just pick one out (The rest, naturally, remain waterproof in case you drop the box.) and rub off the wax.
From the examples in the essay, you could easily make the case that for real security use good code.
Global warming might be decreasing.
No one forced anyone to connect to other networks. But connecting different networks is essentially what the internet is. The alternative would be someone's very own intranet. If the US disconnected tomorrow (something I certainly wouldn't want), the internet would carry on without it. The internet is larger than any one country.