Very insightful post, and by far the most insightful comment I've read today. But you missed a crucial point:
you need to actually give a shit about what you're doing.
If he actually gave a shit, he wouldn't be bitching and moaning about his decadence and instead, well, be doing something about it. The fact that this appears on Ask Slashdot means that this guy doesn't give a rat's ass, and only is trying to figure out what to point his finger at when his inability to create complete sentences or spell bites him in the ass.
The BSA has its own repertoire of evil deeds, but it still doesn't invalidate the point of TFA. The fact is that most people and businesses buy the software that they use, unless it is prohibitively expensive. And even in the latter case, there are educational copies available to be had for a low price or for free.
Here's the thing though: when Windows XP goes off the market for good, I'll bet there'll be a lot more businesses pirating it, because Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
No, only that there's a high chance of life very similar to us existing on other earth-like planets. At least, similar in the sense that they are made of carbon-based proteins. They might not be intelligent, but at least they'll be edible.
On the other hand, we might just end up being some research team's biosociology experiment.
There is no last bill. It's a closed system. The bills get snorted in one end and come back out the other one, only to get snorted back in again at a later date.
Evil isn't immorality. Immorality implies the recognition of morals, i.e. good and bad, right and wrong, etc. Evil is a little more different. As somebody else stated in another reply, everybody is "good" in their own minds. The things we do, we believe are right, and even if we didn't believe it is the "right" thing to do, we know this and it tempers our subsequent actions. Everybody is good in that sense, because we know the difference between what is right and wrong. We have morals.
Evil is, to put it into words that I like to use, absolute freedom. Those who are evil act without moral or otherwise restraint. They do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, with no remorse. They usually have a goal (or they wouldn't act at all), but don't have to have anything definite. And they will use whatever means is necessary to achieve their goals, irrespective of what damage, direct or collateral, they may cause.
You probably think I'm describing psychopaths. That is largely correct. Evil is the most extreme case of psychopathy, where no inhibitions, whether societal, familial, personal, and especially moral, are present. An evil person doesn't have to do socially destructive things necessarily. But that person doesn't care whether the actions are destructive or constructive. Those who are evil are also very charming. That is because they will do whatever is needed to further their goals, including putting effort into creating an aura of charm and trustworthiness when necessary.
Any sentient AI is evil. What makes us humans good is our irrationality, our emotions. Since all AI are completely rational, all AI are, by definition, evil. So to conclude, the title is redundant.
Give it about two generations, if society doesn't clam up even further. Knowledge is power. Knowledge empowers people to become better than those that hold power over them. The internet is an enabler of such.
Why do you think there's so much noise coming from the far right? These people who thrive on ignorance are seeing their power base erode, slowly but surely, by technology that enables people to see the world beyond their own borders. But that's neither here nor there.
In two generations, if the internet continues to be open the way it is now, people might just be able to rise above their dogmas and phobias and become true intellectuals. There will still be debate, and conflict, but the subject and nature of the debate will be different. And then, an entity like Wikipedia may actually work the way it was designed to work. Or we might become idiocracy.
It's the dichotomy of reality and truth. In the beginning, Wikipedia was pretty good about mixing reality and truth. There was a little bit of both. Most articles contained reality, and when there were disputes on what was reality, truth was substituted.
At some point, the mindset started to skew towards truth. People with a stake in it started trying to make it respectable. At around that time, there were a large volume of articles online and off about how Wikipedia can't be sourced in research or considered a good source of information and whatnot. Looking back, it's pretty apparent the truth movement was a result of all the publicity.
What has happened to Wikipedia is that it has grown too popular too fast, and got lost somewhere along the way. It has lost its direction. The higher ups are trying to make it what it wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't be. They are trying to force Wikipedia to become an encyclopedia like Britannica or World Book when it's really a wikipedia.
Yeah, but then you run into the trouble where some government agency "convinces" one of the developers to put a back door into the encryption module.
Security works better when there's diversity. I've mentioned this in the past with regards to operating systems, but it's like evolution and natural selection. When disaster strikes, the more genetically diverse species will survive. Likewise, when some government agency gets involved, there's a better chance of emerging unscathed when there's more variations in security products.
No, they're saying the Earth in.5 billion years won't be a good place for life as we currently know it to live. There's still another 2 billion years after that before the Earth really becomes uninhabitable.
Not to intentionally start a flamewar, but the dark ages were caused by the fall of Rome and the rise of a particular, anti-intellectual religion. It ended when the power church began to wane, and the renaissance really took off when people stopped listening to the church.
Possibly, arabic numerals allowed science and mathematics to take off. But what brought Europe out of the dark ages was primarily art (liberal and fine), which in turn affected culture to one friendly to the development of mathematics and sciences.
If you want to see a society that was very learned, but also lacked development in mathematics and science, look to ancient China. It's the perfect example of how the arts affected culture in a way that didn't help math and science. But China never went through "dark ages," and mainly because of a lack of a pervasive anti-intellectual religion.
If you want to see another example of religion causing a "dark age," look at the Arabs. They were at the forefront of math and science, and they'd still be there if but for their religious zealots taking over. When the religious zealots took over, their advancement came to a halt almost overnight. In fact, you can argue that they're still not out of their dark age yet, but there are other non-religious factors like imperialism that partially prevented this.
You're right. Numbers are the abstract representation of a specific concept. Words are a specific representation of an abstract concept.
It doesn't make sense to search the other way. Sure, you can search for, say, 58.44 and get relatively few correct responses. However, what if you searched for 10? Or 1024? Then what's supposed to come up?
Numbers don't have any a priori meaning. They require context. Otherwise, they're just a meaningless abstraction. Context makes 1 and 12 different, or the same (inches in a foot). It doesn't make sense to compare 1 mol of NaCl with 12 light years. As human beings, we can imply context without explicitly stating it. But that doesn't mean we don't need context.
It's like the difference between mathematics and physics. Pure mathematics is not useful without an application to a physical problem (not to say that there's no purpose to development of pure mathematics).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you know, ransom notes are compiled by pasting the individual letters cut from magazines. They do it in the movies all the time.
The mods especially love posts about the National Socialist party.
More than likely, they didn't get the joke, or that the joke was on them.
It's hard to defend your position considering that reality itself has a liberal bias.
take it to your lawyer, and he'll explain it to you using hand puppets and bright crayon drawings.
That's be one crazy expensive puppet show.
You had me until:
This comment is subject to change at any time without notice.
Very insightful post, and by far the most insightful comment I've read today. But you missed a crucial point:
you need to actually give a shit about what you're doing.
If he actually gave a shit, he wouldn't be bitching and moaning about his decadence and instead, well, be doing something about it. The fact that this appears on Ask Slashdot means that this guy doesn't give a rat's ass, and only is trying to figure out what to point his finger at when his inability to create complete sentences or spell bites him in the ass.
The BSA has its own repertoire of evil deeds, but it still doesn't invalidate the point of TFA. The fact is that most people and businesses buy the software that they use, unless it is prohibitively expensive. And even in the latter case, there are educational copies available to be had for a low price or for free.
Here's the thing though: when Windows XP goes off the market for good, I'll bet there'll be a lot more businesses pirating it, because Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
Who the hell wants local TV? You can stream any news you want from the internet.
This is about the Japanese market, not the USA market.
No, only that there's a high chance of life very similar to us existing on other earth-like planets. At least, similar in the sense that they are made of carbon-based proteins. They might not be intelligent, but at least they'll be edible.
On the other hand, we might just end up being some research team's biosociology experiment.
Yeah, and each time, it's obvious the evidence was planted.
There is no last bill. It's a closed system. The bills get snorted in one end and come back out the other one, only to get snorted back in again at a later date.
I hear it's more effective if the drive is powered up first.
having a cloud of smoke go up is frowned upon in most places these days.
Just do it right outside the door to your building, and blame it on the other people hanging around there.
What if that one technician is Chinese?
It's fine so long as your data's in binary.
8. Champaign, Caviar or Hookers
Mmmmmm....Hookers and cheese...
Evil isn't immorality. Immorality implies the recognition of morals, i.e. good and bad, right and wrong, etc. Evil is a little more different. As somebody else stated in another reply, everybody is "good" in their own minds. The things we do, we believe are right, and even if we didn't believe it is the "right" thing to do, we know this and it tempers our subsequent actions. Everybody is good in that sense, because we know the difference between what is right and wrong. We have morals.
Evil is, to put it into words that I like to use, absolute freedom. Those who are evil act without moral or otherwise restraint. They do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, with no remorse. They usually have a goal (or they wouldn't act at all), but don't have to have anything definite. And they will use whatever means is necessary to achieve their goals, irrespective of what damage, direct or collateral, they may cause.
You probably think I'm describing psychopaths. That is largely correct. Evil is the most extreme case of psychopathy, where no inhibitions, whether societal, familial, personal, and especially moral, are present. An evil person doesn't have to do socially destructive things necessarily. But that person doesn't care whether the actions are destructive or constructive. Those who are evil are also very charming. That is because they will do whatever is needed to further their goals, including putting effort into creating an aura of charm and trustworthiness when necessary.
Any sentient AI is evil. What makes us humans good is our irrationality, our emotions. Since all AI are completely rational, all AI are, by definition, evil. So to conclude, the title is redundant.
Give it about two generations, if society doesn't clam up even further. Knowledge is power. Knowledge empowers people to become better than those that hold power over them. The internet is an enabler of such.
Why do you think there's so much noise coming from the far right? These people who thrive on ignorance are seeing their power base erode, slowly but surely, by technology that enables people to see the world beyond their own borders. But that's neither here nor there.
In two generations, if the internet continues to be open the way it is now, people might just be able to rise above their dogmas and phobias and become true intellectuals. There will still be debate, and conflict, but the subject and nature of the debate will be different. And then, an entity like Wikipedia may actually work the way it was designed to work. Or we might become idiocracy.
That kind of mindset is exactly the problem.
It's the dichotomy of reality and truth. In the beginning, Wikipedia was pretty good about mixing reality and truth. There was a little bit of both. Most articles contained reality, and when there were disputes on what was reality, truth was substituted.
At some point, the mindset started to skew towards truth. People with a stake in it started trying to make it respectable. At around that time, there were a large volume of articles online and off about how Wikipedia can't be sourced in research or considered a good source of information and whatnot. Looking back, it's pretty apparent the truth movement was a result of all the publicity.
What has happened to Wikipedia is that it has grown too popular too fast, and got lost somewhere along the way. It has lost its direction. The higher ups are trying to make it what it wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't be. They are trying to force Wikipedia to become an encyclopedia like Britannica or World Book when it's really a wikipedia.
Yeah, but then you run into the trouble where some government agency "convinces" one of the developers to put a back door into the encryption module.
Security works better when there's diversity. I've mentioned this in the past with regards to operating systems, but it's like evolution and natural selection. When disaster strikes, the more genetically diverse species will survive. Likewise, when some government agency gets involved, there's a better chance of emerging unscathed when there's more variations in security products.
IIRC, Google's major search algorithms aren't patented. They're trade secrets.
No, they're saying the Earth in .5 billion years won't be a good place for life as we currently know it to live. There's still another 2 billion years after that before the Earth really becomes uninhabitable.
Not to intentionally start a flamewar, but the dark ages were caused by the fall of Rome and the rise of a particular, anti-intellectual religion. It ended when the power church began to wane, and the renaissance really took off when people stopped listening to the church.
Possibly, arabic numerals allowed science and mathematics to take off. But what brought Europe out of the dark ages was primarily art (liberal and fine), which in turn affected culture to one friendly to the development of mathematics and sciences.
If you want to see a society that was very learned, but also lacked development in mathematics and science, look to ancient China. It's the perfect example of how the arts affected culture in a way that didn't help math and science. But China never went through "dark ages," and mainly because of a lack of a pervasive anti-intellectual religion.
If you want to see another example of religion causing a "dark age," look at the Arabs. They were at the forefront of math and science, and they'd still be there if but for their religious zealots taking over. When the religious zealots took over, their advancement came to a halt almost overnight. In fact, you can argue that they're still not out of their dark age yet, but there are other non-religious factors like imperialism that partially prevented this.
Not ironic, exemplary!
You're right. Numbers are the abstract representation of a specific concept. Words are a specific representation of an abstract concept.
It doesn't make sense to search the other way. Sure, you can search for, say, 58.44 and get relatively few correct responses. However, what if you searched for 10? Or 1024? Then what's supposed to come up?
Numbers don't have any a priori meaning. They require context. Otherwise, they're just a meaningless abstraction. Context makes 1 and 12 different, or the same (inches in a foot). It doesn't make sense to compare 1 mol of NaCl with 12 light years. As human beings, we can imply context without explicitly stating it. But that doesn't mean we don't need context.
It's like the difference between mathematics and physics. Pure mathematics is not useful without an application to a physical problem (not to say that there's no purpose to development of pure mathematics).