Amazon is good about honoring refund requests, which is good twice over for their customers, since it also gives them an incentive to pull defective products.
the two accounts were not linked in any way [email address, openID, et cetera] except for having the same name on record.
Having the same name on record had nothing to do with it. Yelp was forwarding the information to a page on Facebook, which used the cookies stored in your browser to see which account was logged in (same as how when you log in to Facebook, go elsewhere online, and then return, it knows which account is logged in and doesn't ask you to log in again).
That aside, you've got it right. The problem with Beacon (in it's original implementation) was that it did unexpected stuff without the user's consent.
Good luck getting twelve jurors who both believe in jury nullification and believe that this particular law is unjust. The jury selection process is used to try to ensure that sort of thing doesn't happen.
Juries in these cases tend to be stocked with technophobic conservatives who make no distinction between "pirates" and "hackers" and thieves.
Since all of the above sounds really great for the vast majority of the population, I don't really care about the "bad for business" whining. Of course, if it's really so bad that businesses leave, that would be bad for the economy, but that would also raise unemployment, so the system is self-correcting.
They'd have to go through the General Services Administration. Guess the GSA decided that the transition office of the President-elect falls under the group "U.S. Governmental departments, programs, and agencies on the federal level". I somehow doubt it's very hard for a sitting senator to convince the GSA to give them a.gov address.
Currently, there are two traits shared by all locations found to support life:
1. Usable energy
2. Liquid water
As far as I can tell from the article, this planet doesn't meet point two. Now, granted, we may yet be surprised on those points (although I think it's extremely unlikely we'll find the first to be untrue), but I don't think the OP's statement is going out too much on a limb.
1) DRM is bad 2) It hurts the market 3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it! 4) But we're not going to get rid of it 5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
The way I see it is this: It's change or die, and the music companies know it. However, that doesn't mean that all the companies that change will succeed. Some will screw it up and end up with a business model that's even worse than the current one. They're hoping that the government will mandate some better business model so that they can make the switch without the risk that their competitors will out-maneuver them. This also allows them to dodge the blame if the whole industry subsequently implodes.
Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power have been refered to as "renewable" for a long time, along with resources (like forests) that need to be "replanted".
... to see how many customers actually leave when major changes piss them off. Since the answer is "almost none", they now know it's safe to sell the site to whoever without fear of the userbase jumping ship.
(Okay, so I don't actually believe that. But if I were more of a conspiracy theorist...)
Only if the business transactions in the MMORPG consist of betting on games of chance. You can gamble with cash, and you can use virtual money in ways that aren't gambling.
On the other hand, without Firefox you'd see a bunch of popup advertising, and right there you'd think to yourself, "This is an annoying and/or low quality website" etc.
Sure. That's fine, and most people would agree with that definition. But there could or should be a better one.
Bingo. Just what I was working towards.
From a scientific point of view, the "will" is the independent variable, and the end behavior is the dependent variable.
This I disagree with. Since when is "will" a measurable quantity? (Not that it has to be qualitative, but still.)
At any rate, since I'm not arguing that people can suceed at any task throught "pure will alone" or something like that, the rest of your post is a bit of a non-sequitor. People in general are not very talented (or skilled) at making statistically random picks. So?
Let me continue with my line of reasoning:
You accepted my definition of free will. Would that still be acceptable if:
I change the tense ("if someone will do X, but could do other-than-X, then they have free will")?
I talk about first-person knowledge ("if I do X, but I know I could have done other-than-X, then I know I have free will")?
I combine the two ("if I will do X, but I know I could do other-than-X, then I know I have free will")?
I believe that science does assume that all systems are deterministic, even quantum mechanics.
Agreed. However, it's not an unquestionable assumption. There are plenty of well-respected hypotheses that assert that quantum mechanics is not deterministic. On the other hand, investigating these hypotheses is currently unprofitable (i.e. if I assume a system is non-deterministic, I can't prove that assumption, nor can I figure out anything else about a system on the basis of that assumption).
Now, back to free will. What can somebody do with their "will"?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is what people are normally claiming when they claim that they have free will.
Can we agree on a definition, here? Here's a pretty standard one: "If someone does X, but could have done other-than-X, then they have free will." Is this an acceptable definition of free will?
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is good about honoring refund requests, which is good twice over for their customers, since it also gives them an incentive to pull defective products.
Presumably, they're trying to make measurements that will confirm (or contradict) that theoretical work.
I'm sure even Kurzweil thinks we won't be simulating the entire universe until 2100, at least.
the two accounts were not linked in any way [email address, openID, et cetera] except for having the same name on record.
Having the same name on record had nothing to do with it. Yelp was forwarding the information to a page on Facebook, which used the cookies stored in your browser to see which account was logged in (same as how when you log in to Facebook, go elsewhere online, and then return, it knows which account is logged in and doesn't ask you to log in again).
That aside, you've got it right. The problem with Beacon (in it's original implementation) was that it did unexpected stuff without the user's consent.
Good luck getting twelve jurors who both believe in jury nullification and believe that this particular law is unjust. The jury selection process is used to try to ensure that sort of thing doesn't happen.
Juries in these cases tend to be stocked with technophobic conservatives who make no distinction between "pirates" and "hackers" and thieves.
Since all of the above sounds really great for the vast majority of the population, I don't really care about the "bad for business" whining. Of course, if it's really so bad that businesses leave, that would be bad for the economy, but that would also raise unemployment, so the system is self-correcting.
They'd have to go through the General Services Administration. Guess the GSA decided that the transition office of the President-elect falls under the group "U.S. Governmental departments, programs, and agencies on the federal level". I somehow doubt it's very hard for a sitting senator to convince the GSA to give them a .gov address.
Currently, there are two traits shared by all locations found to support life: 1. Usable energy 2. Liquid water As far as I can tell from the article, this planet doesn't meet point two. Now, granted, we may yet be surprised on those points (although I think it's extremely unlikely we'll find the first to be untrue), but I don't think the OP's statement is going out too much on a limb.
Maybe they should just pay people to take the systems! That would really move 'em off the shelves!
They want to reduce air pollution from airplanes? How about not letting all the bankrupt airlines stay in business?
So that the Soviets can't do it first, obviously.
1) DRM is bad
2) It hurts the market
3) Doggone it, let's get rid of it!
4) But we're not going to get rid of it
5) We're hoping the government will force us to get rid of it?
The way I see it is this: It's change or die, and the music companies know it. However, that doesn't mean that all the companies that change will succeed. Some will screw it up and end up with a business model that's even worse than the current one. They're hoping that the government will mandate some better business model so that they can make the switch without the risk that their competitors will out-maneuver them. This also allows them to dodge the blame if the whole industry subsequently implodes.
Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power have been refered to as "renewable" for a long time, along with resources (like forests) that need to be "replanted".
... to see how many customers actually leave when major changes piss them off. Since the answer is "almost none", they now know it's safe to sell the site to whoever without fear of the userbase jumping ship.
(Okay, so I don't actually believe that. But if I were more of a conspiracy theorist...)
Dont be silly. You make it sound like Wikipedia is being run by a cabal or something.
(Seriously, who says Wikipedia editors want "glory"?)
I asked. See the comment I left on the video's page.
My God! He never took middle school hygiene! He never saw the propaganda film!
Only if the business transactions in the MMORPG consist of betting on games of chance. You can gamble with cash, and you can use virtual money in ways that aren't gambling.
I'd word it differently: We'll find that the phenomena we refer to as "choice" are not a form of magic.
... but not nearly as much as renounification.
Not quite. The ampersand stands for the English word "and", but it used to stand for the Latin word "et" (obligatory Wikipedia reference).
And with that, I shall adorn myself with aerogel pants and await the flaming...
Okay.
You idiot, it's asbestos pants.
On the other hand, without Firefox you'd see a bunch of popup advertising, and right there you'd think to yourself, "This is an annoying and/or low quality website" etc.
Sure. That's fine, and most people would agree with that definition. But there could or should be a better one.
Bingo. Just what I was working towards.
From a scientific point of view, the "will" is the independent variable, and the end behavior is the dependent variable.
This I disagree with. Since when is "will" a measurable quantity? (Not that it has to be qualitative, but still.)
At any rate, since I'm not arguing that people can suceed at any task throught "pure will alone" or something like that, the rest of your post is a bit of a non-sequitor. People in general are not very talented (or skilled) at making statistically random picks. So?
Let me continue with my line of reasoning:
You accepted my definition of free will. Would that still be acceptable if:
Agreed. However, it's not an unquestionable assumption. There are plenty of well-respected hypotheses that assert that quantum mechanics is not deterministic. On the other hand, investigating these hypotheses is currently unprofitable (i.e. if I assume a system is non-deterministic, I can't prove that assumption, nor can I figure out anything else about a system on the basis of that assumption).
Now, back to free will. What can somebody do with their "will"?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is what people are normally claiming when they claim that they have free will.
Can we agree on a definition, here? Here's a pretty standard one: "If someone does X, but could have done other-than-X, then they have free will." Is this an acceptable definition of free will?