What you say makes no sense. I'm against police states and Big Brother as much as the next/.'er, but once a threat, any type of threat, has been made in connection with an airport, government building or anything else of importance, it *must* be investigated. I wouldn't be surprised if the police, during their investigation, already suspected it was just a joke. Nevertheless, they have to do their job (and yes, without violating any rights etc.).
It would be a sad state of affairs if the police were to receive a tip on a potential crime and would not even investigate, just because "how can anyone think this is serious"? Even sadder is, that this actually does happen...
That's funny because I had a tendency to cry. I always end up in Freedom discussions with Americans in particular. I come from Holland. This means that as soon as you hit 18 you can choose to smoke dope, frequent hookers, drink alcohol (that's from 16, really), eat shrooms, vote, have sex (that's from 16, really), have same sex sex, marry someone of any gender, have an abortion, commit euthanasia in a pinch and convert to any or no religion.
Your examples don't mean anything in either this discussion, or the ones that you are having with your American friends. That is, unless you wish to defend anarchy, the ultimate form of freedom, as a viable form of running a society.
Yet we are a social-democracy. According to many Americans this seems to equal a Socialist or even Communist State. In spite of all the choices we have, we're reputed not to be "free". When I then urge these individuals to consider the range of choices they have and from what age, they tend to shrug their shoulders and tell me they're right anyhow.
The freedom they talk about here is entirely different. E.g. try starting a small company in the Netherlands, and one in the US. Then you'll understand why they consider the US to be more "free" and the Netherlands to be almost Communist. All in all, I think there is no point in discussing which of these two countries is more "free".
Besides, when using modules like numpy, the numerically intensive functions are written in C or Fortran anyway (e.g. LAPACK, ODEPACK). Python then becomes the glue to tie all those high-performance routines together, without the need for malloc, common blocks or whatever time-consuming things there may be in the compiled languages.
That one was awesome! It would be pretty psychedelic to film it without giving the actual point of view away. Done well (as animation perhaps?) it could really be good!
Total Recall is still relatively good when watching it when you're older. Not many people I know who saw this movie recognized that at the end, you still don't know if it is the virtual vacation you are watching and if he needs to be lobotomized after this, or not; everything that happens in the story is exactly what he wanted from his vacation. With that in mind, the red pill scene is pretty interesting, where the rekall team tries to give him a way out without damaging his brain, but he chooses to remain in his dreams instead.
The good thing of that movie is that it is filmed such that you don't have to think about it and enjoy it as an above average action film, but you _can_, and it makes it a bit more interesting.
I think that there is a hint of PKD's depth in that film if you bother to look for it. I didn't really notice this in Paycheck, for instance.
So before deciding on what to believe in, you read all relevant texts of all other religions (and also scientific models on life), all the arguments for and against, before settling on some form of Christianity? Wow, that's great, I'd like to shake your hand!
But theoretically, free will could be demonstrated. If there is something that you really don't want to do, and have already firmly decided not to do, and you still go ahead and do it anyway, that would prove you possess free will.
However, this would be too difficult an experiment to perform. Namely, one could argue that you decided to do this anyway merely to prove the existence of free will, which you would perceive as a gain in your life. This, by itself could be the ("external") stimulus to perform the action.
Maybe someone could think up a proper experiment in a closed environment. But I generally don't trust these type of behaviour experiments, nor their outcomes...
even the best 'storytelling games' involves really poor writing and really poor story telling
why place this demand on game developers?
if you want a good story, read a book be sensitive to games - they can't attract the talent for story telling because ultimately, if your good at writing stories, you wouldn't be working in the industry
While that is true, I liked the stories of e.g. Deus Ex and Wing Commander IV, and of course several adventure games and RPGs (including KotoR).
Of course, none of these reach the levels of literature, but they are good stories, as opposed to "run through this level, shoot at everything that moves and push the button".
While shooting at stuff is cool, the story keeps me motivated enough to turn that next corner and shoot more stuff. Or, if there is a lack of story, I get bored relatively quickly.
Interesting, I thought that the Hellboy comics (started in 1993) wer the basis of the scripts? I've never read them, though, but I was always under the impression that the whole WWII-Rasputin thing was from the comics...
It seems like a very odd feature to point out...javascript VM, open source, and TABS ON TOP!! Huh?
Since it's called "specialized tabs" or something, maybe you can change other aspects, like the buttons, button layout etc. per tab? I dunno, I'm just guessing here...
To be fair, although Ledger was a good villain, he played the Joker like a sadistic psychopath (one of many), while Nicholson played him like the sadistic showman that the Joker (arguably) should be, he played him like The Joker. Ledger was good, I liked Nicholson's interpretation better; he really does know how to do that!
Also, but I might be wrong about this, it seemed that Nicholson had more fun (and the script, mood and setting allowed for it) while playing the Joker, which of course added to the Joke.
Finally, who's ego wouldn't be hurt with something like this? At least he's honest about it. I'd throw out my Nicholson collection if he went on to hate, trash and sue or whatever.
Wait, you're saying that confidence tricksters of any type are not violating any laws? And that is modded insightful? Damn... I guess Wall Street hustlers and child abusers will be really happy with that!
I guess the point is, that the moment you go online and, say, google for something, you are downloading files (html pages, pictures etc.). These files consist of chunks (arbitrary sized, so one could argue each byte or even each bit is a chunk). These are identical to the ones you need to reconstruct copyrighted material, such as another picture or an MP3. But you don't have the map to create that copyrighted material.
In the case of OFFS, the chunks are fixed in size and can only be used if you have a map to construct the data. From this, the defendant can answer "no" with a straight face, unless he also shared that particular map to combine the random chunks into Britney Spears whatever.
In general, each file is a map containing 1's and 0's of how to recreate something, on a monitor (via video card etc), on your speakers (via audio card etc). Thus it's actually not sharing the file that violates copyright, but sharing such a map.
It's identical to being able to reconstruct copyrighted works from the words and/or letters that you typed in your own work, that you share for free. But since you don't share the map to actually reconstruct these copyrighted works from those words and letters, you aren't violating anything.
If this is not legally correct, then everyone has violated some, if not all, existing copyrights. And even future ones, which could be used to claim prior art.
Nevertheless, if you want to share (for free) Britney Spears.mp3 from OFFS, then you need to distribute that map to reconstruct the file, even if others have all the chunks on your hard drive. Obviously, you are then, under current laws, in violation.
I refuse to accept stories that rely heavily on having faith, as explanations. If that were so, than any religious person should/would accept Pastafarianism as a valid alternative (which, I know, was the point of that excercise).
The point of science is to describe the behaviour of things objectively, whereas religion serves (but doesn't always succeed) to enforce "civilized" social behaviour by introducing a higher authority in our minds and thus making us accountable for our actions. Also, it serves to ease our minds that we are looked after by a Big Brother in the sky (well, in Christianity at least) to whom we can pray to influence things that are in fact totally out of our control, and to complain to when shit happens.
The fact that many astronomers (and indeed, other scientists) are religious doesn't mean that the science they do relies on their religion. Rather, it indicates a certain quality of their character that needs religion to justify their existence, and rather than using philosophy and reason, they choose to resolve those issues within the constraints of religion and faith.
But in terms of explaining stuff, religion is merely a rather outdated placeholder for parts of science that do not yet exist.
Currently, religion and spirituality provide more insight into this mystery than science. Surely you meant to say "philosophy", not its ugly little brother religion, or the black sheep of the family, spirituality...
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
Religion needs science because, well, religion is pretty bad at explaining almost everything that happens around us.
But why does science need religion again? I will agree with science needing philosophy, but I don't see how any one particular interpretation of (simplified) philosophy and faith/belief therein can help science.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say makes no sense. I'm against police states and Big Brother as much as the next /.'er, but once a threat, any type of threat, has been made in connection with an airport, government building or anything else of importance, it *must* be investigated. I wouldn't be surprised if the police, during their investigation, already suspected it was just a joke. Nevertheless, they have to do their job (and yes, without violating any rights etc.).
It would be a sad state of affairs if the police were to receive a tip on a potential crime and would not even investigate, just because "how can anyone think this is serious"? Even sadder is, that this actually does happen...
Dude, I'm Dutch. I'm saying you're using arguments that are out of the scope of the discussion.
That's funny because I had a tendency to cry. I always end up in Freedom discussions with Americans in particular. I come from Holland. This means that as soon as you hit 18 you can choose to smoke dope, frequent hookers, drink alcohol (that's from 16, really), eat shrooms, vote, have sex (that's from 16, really), have same sex sex, marry someone of any gender, have an abortion, commit euthanasia in a pinch and convert to any or no religion.
Your examples don't mean anything in either this discussion, or the ones that you are having with your American friends. That is, unless you wish to defend anarchy, the ultimate form of freedom, as a viable form of running a society.
Yet we are a social-democracy. According to many Americans this seems to equal a Socialist or even Communist State. In spite of all the choices we have, we're reputed not to be "free". When I then urge these individuals to consider the range of choices they have and from what age, they tend to shrug their shoulders and tell me they're right anyhow.
The freedom they talk about here is entirely different. E.g. try starting a small company in the Netherlands, and one in the US. Then you'll understand why they consider the US to be more "free" and the Netherlands to be almost Communist. All in all, I think there is no point in discussing which of these two countries is more "free".
Besides, when using modules like numpy, the numerically intensive functions are written in C or Fortran anyway (e.g. LAPACK, ODEPACK). Python then becomes the glue to tie all those high-performance routines together, without the need for malloc, common blocks or whatever time-consuming things there may be in the compiled languages.
Else, just use lisp :)
Well, quoting Stephen King definately matches the level for this article...
That one was awesome! It would be pretty psychedelic to film it without giving the actual point of view away. Done well (as animation perhaps?) it could really be good!
Total Recall is still relatively good when watching it when you're older. Not many people I know who saw this movie recognized that at the end, you still don't know if it is the virtual vacation you are watching and if he needs to be lobotomized after this, or not; everything that happens in the story is exactly what he wanted from his vacation. With that in mind, the red pill scene is pretty interesting, where the rekall team tries to give him a way out without damaging his brain, but he chooses to remain in his dreams instead.
The good thing of that movie is that it is filmed such that you don't have to think about it and enjoy it as an above average action film, but you _can_, and it makes it a bit more interesting.
I think that there is a hint of PKD's depth in that film if you bother to look for it. I didn't really notice this in Paycheck, for instance.
And stores selling sensitive or expensive items, that supervise my manner of eating messy subs, are excercising censorship!
Not to mention toy stores not selling adult toys...
Why don't they file for injunctions against those idiots who play their MP3 players too loudly in the bus?
So before deciding on what to believe in, you read all relevant texts of all other religions (and also scientific models on life), all the arguments for and against, before settling on some form of Christianity? Wow, that's great, I'd like to shake your hand!
But theoretically, free will could be demonstrated. If there is something that you really don't want to do, and have already firmly decided not to do, and you still go ahead and do it anyway, that would prove you possess free will.
However, this would be too difficult an experiment to perform. Namely, one could argue that you decided to do this anyway merely to prove the existence of free will, which you would perceive as a gain in your life. This, by itself could be the ("external") stimulus to perform the action.
Maybe someone could think up a proper experiment in a closed environment. But I generally don't trust these type of behaviour experiments, nor their outcomes...
I admit, I also thought Republic Commando was quite fun, although a bit short.
Well, that ought to scare him away! OMG, a GIRLfriend!
Hey, were you on Disagree Mail the other day?
I'm wondering if the haters are worried that some of their e-mails may be put in this section... That would be a good reason to shout "Kill it!", no?
even the best 'storytelling games' involves really poor writing and really poor story telling
why place this demand on game developers?
if you want a good story, read a book
be sensitive to games - they can't attract the talent for story telling because ultimately, if your good at writing stories, you wouldn't be working in the industry
While that is true, I liked the stories of e.g. Deus Ex and Wing Commander IV, and of course several adventure games and RPGs (including KotoR).
Of course, none of these reach the levels of literature, but they are good stories, as opposed to "run through this level, shoot at everything that moves and push the button".
While shooting at stuff is cool, the story keeps me motivated enough to turn that next corner and shoot more stuff. Or, if there is a lack of story, I get bored relatively quickly.
Interesting, I thought that the Hellboy comics (started in 1993) wer the basis of the scripts? I've never read them, though, but I was always under the impression that the whole WWII-Rasputin thing was from the comics...
It seems like a very odd feature to point out...javascript VM, open source, and TABS ON TOP!! Huh?
Since it's called "specialized tabs" or something, maybe you can change other aspects, like the buttons, button layout etc. per tab? I dunno, I'm just guessing here...
To be fair, although Ledger was a good villain, he played the Joker like a sadistic psychopath (one of many), while Nicholson played him like the sadistic showman that the Joker (arguably) should be, he played him like The Joker. Ledger was good, I liked Nicholson's interpretation better; he really does know how to do that!
Also, but I might be wrong about this, it seemed that Nicholson had more fun (and the script, mood and setting allowed for it) while playing the Joker, which of course added to the Joke.
Finally, who's ego wouldn't be hurt with something like this? At least he's honest about it. I'd throw out my Nicholson collection if he went on to hate, trash and sue or whatever.
Wait, you're saying that confidence tricksters of any type are not violating any laws? And that is modded insightful? Damn... I guess Wall Street hustlers and child abusers will be really happy with that!
I guess the point is, that the moment you go online and, say, google for something, you are downloading files (html pages, pictures etc.). These files consist of chunks (arbitrary sized, so one could argue each byte or even each bit is a chunk). These are identical to the ones you need to reconstruct copyrighted material, such as another picture or an MP3. But you don't have the map to create that copyrighted material.
In the case of OFFS, the chunks are fixed in size and can only be used if you have a map to construct the data. From this, the defendant can answer "no" with a straight face, unless he also shared that particular map to combine the random chunks into Britney Spears whatever.
In general, each file is a map containing 1's and 0's of how to recreate something, on a monitor (via video card etc), on your speakers (via audio card etc). Thus it's actually not sharing the file that violates copyright, but sharing such a map.
It's identical to being able to reconstruct copyrighted works from the words and/or letters that you typed in your own work, that you share for free. But since you don't share the map to actually reconstruct these copyrighted works from those words and letters, you aren't violating anything.
If this is not legally correct, then everyone has violated some, if not all, existing copyrights. And even future ones, which could be used to claim prior art.
Nevertheless, if you want to share (for free) Britney Spears.mp3 from OFFS, then you need to distribute that map to reconstruct the file, even if others have all the chunks on your hard drive. Obviously, you are then, under current laws, in violation.
I refuse to accept stories that rely heavily on having faith, as explanations. If that were so, than any religious person should/would accept Pastafarianism as a valid alternative (which, I know, was the point of that excercise).
The point of science is to describe the behaviour of things objectively, whereas religion serves (but doesn't always succeed) to enforce "civilized" social behaviour by introducing a higher authority in our minds and thus making us accountable for our actions. Also, it serves to ease our minds that we are looked after by a Big Brother in the sky (well, in Christianity at least) to whom we can pray to influence things that are in fact totally out of our control, and to complain to when shit happens.
The fact that many astronomers (and indeed, other scientists) are religious doesn't mean that the science they do relies on their religion. Rather, it indicates a certain quality of their character that needs religion to justify their existence, and rather than using philosophy and reason, they choose to resolve those issues within the constraints of religion and faith.
But in terms of explaining stuff, religion is merely a rather outdated placeholder for parts of science that do not yet exist.
..created God? That's a simple one to answer. Humans didNow where's my prize money?
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
Religion needs science because, well, religion is pretty bad at explaining almost everything that happens around us.
But why does science need religion again? I will agree with science needing philosophy, but I don't see how any one particular interpretation of (simplified) philosophy and faith/belief therein can help science.