The "idiot" was not directed a you, it was just an example for your "any willful act, knowingly undertaken". Anyway, you don't seem to understand that "kill" is the most important condition without which there cannot be a murder, and while her guilt is considerable if the story is true, she DID NOT KILL THE GIRL.
I certainly understand the rage, but she was 13 and you left her alone, in her life and on the internet. Your fault as least as much as the woman's (if she did it, let's not forget the current state of the judicial process here.)
Nobody in this thread denied that someone doing this should "share a good bit of responsibility". But it is not murder, which is a pretty precisely defined crime.
any willful act, knowingly undertaken, which causes the death of another person. I: "you are an idiot" (a willful act, knowingly undertaken) You: [kill yourself]
So I am guilty of murder? I don't think so. It is you who should look up the definition:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. [...]
Thats the point I've been making all along. I know, but I don't believe it.
I never said that my mind alone is the mind of the entire universe. I said the sum of all minds is the universe. I know. Somehow the discussion moved to solipsism as such.
I don't think that we are that far apart, so I may not have replied to everything. Take it, if not as tacit agreement, at least as tacit non-disagreement.
I guess my main problem with solipsism is that I find it a sorry state of being - a god who is not aware that he/she/it is a god. After all, everything that is, is created by my mind, and I still understand just a minuscule part of it and can influence even less. I don't even really know that I am all there is, I imagine a whole world out there (in there) and have philosophical discussion with myself on whether my imagination is real or not.
Dunno, I prefer the POV that there is a world that is not me and thus my difficulties to understand and influence it are easy to understand.
Why would that follow more from solipsism than from materialism? It might be argued that if all of you are just lumps of matter, it doesn't matter what I do; whereas if you're all figments of my imagination, by harming you I harm myself. From the solipsist POV: somehow my mind creates entities, like "computers" that follow very strict laws. In fact I create this whole "universe" with maths, physics, and all that. But I don't really understand all this stuff. My ego, the one who is talking all the time, would need to go to school and stuff to learn all these things, and even then there would be not enough time until "I" supposedly will die. As I am told by something "I" call "people", who talk to me. I cannot control them, or understand how they work. Or why I created them. Killing them is hard work and creates all kinds of turmoil in myself
Funnily enough, "I" have another mode of creating, or imagining, I dunno, where I can make computers psychotic and the laws of physics funny. And squash people with feathers. All this has much different effects than the first kind.
And why am I having this discussion with myself?
Materialist POV: imagining things in my mind is less severe than doing things to other entities.
The point of solipsism - at least, in its sophisticated versions - is that the idea of an external universe is not testable. Yeah, both POVs are axioms, as I already conceded.
(Of course, it can only be so seen by itself. I can't show you my perception.) No. You are not writing from a solipsist POV. This whole conversation would be with yourself, imagined by yourself, in a manner that does not let you decide whether you are talking to an external entity or yourself. Solipsist entities, if there were more than one, could not communicate with each other. Maybe one should consider them as different universes.
How, specifically, would you expect such people to act? Again, from a solipsist POV: "I" am (my ego is) everything and dreamed up these other people that run around in myself, act as if they were separate entities (I cannot control them and don't understand them), and a few of them themselves claim they are everything. I wonder what's up with that. And why I am having this conversation with this other part of me on an internet board. Gosh, I wonder why I dreamed up such a limited way of communicating with these hidden parts of myself.
Switching POV back to "real": I dunno how my solipsist ego would expect them to behave, probably it would wish it never would have come up with most of these "people", or they left him alone and went back to some remote parts of the mind.
My real self would expect them not to bother to invent a persona and talk to me in the form of annoying people, or make me love their fata morganas and then taking them away from me. These things. Especially if these people think that I am just something they invented anyway.
This is all very confusing. In the end I agree that we cannot know whether we are, or I am, the all-encompassing buddhist dharma, or living in the the intestines of some 27-dimensional being.
Support for LTS is 36 months for desktop and 60 months for server. Thus, your first option did not exist: sticking with FF2 would have meant that Mozilla ended their FF2 security support before Ubuntu ended theirs for 8.04.
If FF3 B5 is that bad, then the Mozilla devs were wrong about it when they said it's actually ready and more stable than FF2. This would not lend credibility to the argument that their final release would have been significantly better. That said, I haven't had any issues with B5 (but I am not a big extension user).
The question of releasing with FF2 or 3 has been discussed to death by the relevant people prior to release, and by the bystanders afterwards. The decision is also explained in the release notes. Summed up, releasing with FF2 as the default browser was impossible because it would have meant switching to FF3 later in the support cycle, since Mozilla said that they would discontinue security support for FF2 before the support period for 8.04 LTS ends. Given the complexity of FF security, Ubuntu felt not able to continue the FF2 support themselves. Given the recent fiasco with OpenSSH in Debian, I can only applaud them for that.
And Ubuntu cannot switch from FF2 to 3 during an LTS, as it would mean too big a change. The final FF3 will be in the repos when it is ready, and an upgrade from FF3 B5 to FF3 Final is a much smaller step.
Finally, FF2 is available from the repos for those who want to continue using it. It can even share the profile with FF3.
I don't think what you suspect is really what happens, because prior to updating the update-manager disables all third-party repos anyway. Check the log files in/var/log/dist-upgrade/ to see what really goes wrong.
Shuttleworth is talking about commercial linux users and soon-to-be-ex-windows users. Note that Gentoo is not in his list of distros to sync, but RHEL and Novell.
All this would do is ensure that people stick with their current distros. After all, if they all come out on the same date, you're going to grab the one you're currently using, and upgrade. Shuttleworth cares more about new linux users. See LP #1.
Sorry, "can" was an unfortunate choice of words (English is not my first language). I did not mean to express that I "can" do that. Instead, I tried to say that there would be no moral problems whatsoever in doing these things.
I guess that makes most of your reply wasted effort, sorry again for that.
Why is it more plausible that more than me exists? How can the Universe exist if nothing exists but the Universe? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, I guess I agree with that. Both statements are axioms.
Solipsism is no more or less extraordinary than materialism in terms of plausibility or explanatory power. As some one else noted in this thread, the main problem of solipsism is that it is not testable at all. Not just in the strict sense of natural science, but neither in the less strict context of philosophy. As such, it explains everything and nothing, just like the "god" concept.
If everything is inside my mind, then everything has meaning and consequence to me. And meaning and consequence to me is the only sort that matters. I am with Russel on that. Nobody, not even those claiming they are solipsists, live like they really believe that everything is in their mind. I mean, it this were true this single existing mind would have invented/discovered _everything (physics, math), written every computer program in existence, etc. That should change one's view of oneself profoundly, but these people do not act in that manner.
You are not everyone. I would be, to me, if I were a solipsist.
Third parties can verify the existence of something outside your mind. You may choose to believe they don't exist, or are wrong, or whatever else, but that doesn't change that people independent of your mind are able to perceive something. But that's one of the basic problems of solipsism. If I bought into it, there would be no people outside, so whatever they verified could just be my mind playing tricks on me.
I stand corrected. I wrote my reply from memory and for a short moment wanted to include dolphins, too. But then I thought it's a waste of time to look it up for the purpose of this discussion. Regarding the pidgeons, though,
In 1981, Epstein, Lanza and Skinner published a paper in the journal Science in which they argued that the pigeon also passes the mirror test.[4][5] However, the methodology of the experiment has been criticised for explicitly training the pigeons to perform the criterion response (i.e. pecking at the mark.)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you not aware that they are doped up to the ears?
The "idiot" was not directed a you, it was just an example for your "any willful act, knowingly undertaken". Anyway, you don't seem to understand that "kill" is the most important condition without which there cannot be a murder, and while her guilt is considerable if the story is true, she DID NOT KILL THE GIRL.
I certainly understand the rage, but she was 13 and you left her alone, in her life and on the internet. Your fault as least as much as the woman's (if she did it, let's not forget the current state of the judicial process here.)
Nobody in this thread denied that someone doing this should "share a good bit of responsibility". But it is not murder, which is a pretty precisely defined crime.
Not a scientist, and never claimed to be. Anyway, the guy I was talking to claimed it, not me, so go complain to him, please.
But it's still not murder, as defined by the law.
You: [kill yourself]
So I am guilty of murder? I don't think so. It is you who should look up the definition: -- US Code.
Oki. I hope you are aware that she denies it and nothing was proven, though.
If she didn't kill the kid it is not murder, because murder is defined as killing someone (plus other conditions).
MURDER? Are you insane?
This is not as undisputed as you say. Most catholics still don't believe it. Heck, there were even dissenting bishops at Vatican I.
I don't think that we are that far apart, so I may not have replied to everything. Take it, if not as tacit agreement, at least as tacit non-disagreement.
I guess my main problem with solipsism is that I find it a sorry state of being - a god who is not aware that he/she/it is a god. After all, everything that is, is created by my mind, and I still understand just a minuscule part of it and can influence even less. I don't even really know that I am all there is, I imagine a whole world out there (in there) and have philosophical discussion with myself on whether my imagination is real or not.
Dunno, I prefer the POV that there is a world that is not me and thus my difficulties to understand and influence it are easy to understand. Why would that follow more from solipsism than from materialism? It might be argued that if all of you are just lumps of matter, it doesn't matter what I do; whereas if you're all figments of my imagination, by harming you I harm myself. From the solipsist POV: somehow my mind creates entities, like "computers" that follow very strict laws. In fact I create this whole "universe" with maths, physics, and all that. But I don't really understand all this stuff. My ego, the one who is talking all the time, would need to go to school and stuff to learn all these things, and even then there would be not enough time until "I" supposedly will die. As I am told by something "I" call "people", who talk to me. I cannot control them, or understand how they work. Or why I created them. Killing them is hard work and creates all kinds of turmoil in myself
Funnily enough, "I" have another mode of creating, or imagining, I dunno, where I can make computers psychotic and the laws of physics funny. And squash people with feathers. All this has much different effects than the first kind.
And why am I having this discussion with myself?
Materialist POV: imagining things in my mind is less severe than doing things to other entities. The point of solipsism - at least, in its sophisticated versions - is that the idea of an external universe is not testable. Yeah, both POVs are axioms, as I already conceded. (Of course, it can only be so seen by itself. I can't show you my perception.) No. You are not writing from a solipsist POV. This whole conversation would be with yourself, imagined by yourself, in a manner that does not let you decide whether you are talking to an external entity or yourself.
Solipsist entities, if there were more than one, could not communicate with each other. Maybe one should consider them as different universes. How, specifically, would you expect such people to act? Again, from a solipsist POV:
"I" am (my ego is) everything and dreamed up these other people that run around in myself, act as if they were separate entities (I cannot control them and don't understand them), and a few of them themselves claim they are everything. I wonder what's up with that. And why I am having this conversation with this other part of me on an internet board. Gosh, I wonder why I dreamed up such a limited way of communicating with these hidden parts of myself.
Switching POV back to "real": I dunno how my solipsist ego would expect them to behave, probably it would wish it never would have come up with most of these "people", or they left him alone and went back to some remote parts of the mind.
My real self would expect them not to bother to invent a persona and talk to me in the form of annoying people, or make me love their fata morganas and then taking them away from me. These things. Especially if these people think that I am just something they invented anyway.
This is all very confusing. In the end I agree that we cannot know whether we are, or I am, the all-encompassing buddhist dharma, or living in the the intestines of some 27-dimensional being.
RTFA. He talks about a window of at least a month.
Correction:
Support for LTS is 36 months for desktop and 60 months for server. Thus, your first option did not exist: sticking with FF2 would have meant that Mozilla ended their FF2 security support before Ubuntu ended theirs for 8.04.
RTFA. He is not talking about releasing literally simultaneously.
If FF3 B5 is that bad, then the Mozilla devs were wrong about it when they said it's actually ready and more stable than FF2. This would not lend credibility to the argument that their final release would have been significantly better. That said, I haven't had any issues with B5 (but I am not a big extension user).
The question of releasing with FF2 or 3 has been discussed to death by the relevant people prior to release, and by the bystanders afterwards. The decision is also explained in the release notes. Summed up, releasing with FF2 as the default browser was impossible because it would have meant switching to FF3 later in the support cycle, since Mozilla said that they would discontinue security support for FF2 before the support period for 8.04 LTS ends. Given the complexity of FF security, Ubuntu felt not able to continue the FF2 support themselves. Given the recent fiasco with OpenSSH in Debian, I can only applaud them for that.
And Ubuntu cannot switch from FF2 to 3 during an LTS, as it would mean too big a change. The final FF3 will be in the repos when it is ready, and an upgrade from FF3 B5 to FF3 Final is a much smaller step.
Finally, FF2 is available from the repos for those who want to continue using it. It can even share the profile with FF3.
I don't think what you suspect is really what happens, because prior to updating the update-manager disables all third-party repos anyway. Check the log files in /var/log/dist-upgrade/ to see what really goes wrong.
Shuttleworth is talking about commercial linux users and soon-to-be-ex-windows users. Note that Gentoo is not in his list of distros to sync, but RHEL and Novell.
That's because of your UID being over one million.
I don't think Shuttleworth means that they all literally release simultaneously.
I guess that makes most of your reply wasted effort, sorry again for that. Why is it more plausible that more than me exists? How can the Universe exist if nothing exists but the Universe? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, I guess I agree with that. Both statements are axioms. Solipsism is no more or less extraordinary than materialism in terms of plausibility or explanatory power. As some one else noted in this thread, the main problem of solipsism is that it is not testable at all. Not just in the strict sense of natural science, but neither in the less strict context of philosophy. As such, it explains everything and nothing, just like the "god" concept. If everything is inside my mind, then everything has meaning and consequence to me. And meaning and consequence to me is the only sort that matters. I am with Russel on that. Nobody, not even those claiming they are solipsists, live like they really believe that everything is in their mind. I mean, it this were true this single existing mind would have invented/discovered _everything (physics, math), written every computer program in existence, etc. That should change one's view of oneself profoundly, but these people do not act in that manner.