That's the problem with having all of this stuff just provided to everyone as entitlements/"rights". You wind up counting on people to contribute back, to carry their own weight... in short, to do the "right thing".
No, you wind up counting on people's greed, their desire to sleep alone in a proper bedroom instead of a shelter with God knows who, to eat whatever crap they want for however long they want instead of what the nutritionist from the government deemed an acceptable meal for the day, to hire whoever doctor they want whenever they want instead of having whoever the government assigned to them, and so on and so forth.
People love their vices, their shinies to show off and their right to be total jackasses, and they're ready to work their ass off to get them. It's how most of the world's socialist countries continue to grow and prosper after all.
Disclaimer: I'm a capitalist verging on libertarianism, I simply don't feel the need to misrepresent the opposing side just to gain favor for mine.
My guess is, it means that if you lack the means to access the 'net, the government will provide you with one. Which we already have in the form of public libraries, but I'm guessing it'd be more widespread than that if it's officially recognized as a human right.
Owning stuff in this manner is an investment can be easily turned off from a remote source, and there is absolutely zero one can do about it. With books, someone would have to enter my residence unauthorized with a fairly large truck and haul stuff out.
Purposefully? yes. Accidentally however, all it takes is some bad luck with a roof leak and your books are all gone, nevermind a natural disaster of the scale of Katrina.
The ideal rather is a "cloud" service you can make local copies of, like GMail or Impulse. If they go belly up or get purchased by Gamestop (yes, I'm bitter) you still have your local backups available, but if a disaster hits your city and you're forced to evacuate your home, you can at least have the comfort that you'll be able to return to a normal life within minutes of buying another PC in case the one you have bites the dust.
I guess off-site backups would be another option for that too, but let's be honest: how many of us perform our backups on a timely manner? and how many of us then proceed to mail them to another city for safekeeping? thought so.
The problem in those cases are otherwise inocuous acts being illegal rather than the government being able to find out about it. After all, secrecy can be easily defeated by one government official tailing you for a day, and while legality can also be bypassed it's much harder to do so even for a police state.
That's because you're doing it wrong: if you have a deadline in an hour, what you should do is to put your boss in a spaceship travelling at near light speed, not go in it yourself.
Ah, so the people who create things are the leeches, and the people who pirate the works are the creators?
No, people that hold copyrights over their work are the leeches, feeding off their government-enforced monopoly at the expense of society, and people that actually *work* for a living instead of expecting to be paid for work their grandfathers did half a century ago are the creators of wealth. That ought to be obvious enough.
Really? You're going to all of that toxic, intellectually dishonest trouble just to justify your habit of ripping off entertainment?
Considering there's plenty of scientific studies showing that current copyright laws are, in fact, detrimental to society I believe it's you who's being intellectually dishonest just to justify his dream of someday "making it big" with an idea and never having to work on his life. And the saddest part is, I do think you're serious rather than a mere troll.
With a week's training, I'll bet the 1869 man could drive a car, use a cell phone, or browse the internet.
I'll take that bet. Try teaching 70-years-old people to drive a car, use a cellphone or browse the internet. Then remember they're people that saw those technologies be born and mature in front of their eyes throughout the years, while the 1869 man is not.
In fact, I'd bet if you took a hundred volunteers to teach a hundred 1869 men to do those things, after a week at least half your groups would've seen casualties from the 1869 man killing either himself or his teacher on account of the alleged "satanism", "dark magics" or such of the technologies in question. Sure they're Harvard alumni, but technology shock can be very powerful even for otherwise smart and clever people, and if you've taught old people you've probably seen it yourself.
It doesn't have any 'sacred cows' other than logic itself, it's just many scientists (wisely) ignore criticism that's not logical and well-researched itself since if they attended to every crackpot theorist and nutjob they'd be out of time to do their actual work, an attitude that sometimes comes across as being "sacred".
How so? It seems like it would do the opposite by allowing good science without fear of political reprisal.
Because it has enough loopholes that they can still shut down any ideology they don't like, and given the examples they used to illustrate their ideology there's no question as to which side of the "debate" they belong.
If I had a penny for each mistake you made in your post, I'd be able to buy myself a Ferrari.
I have trouble deciding whether you fail more at theology than the 'creationists' do at physics and biology or the other way around, but either way it's a close fight.
Lack of viable offspring from crossbreeding is exactly how we tell one species apart from another. Evolution doesn't happen like in Pokemon, mice don't give birth to squirrels so if that's what you're expecting by "evolution", I'd suggest going back to fourth grade.
No, just their software. Their mice and keyboards are second to none, and I know more than a few gamers that wouldn't touch an X360 with a ten-foot pole but still keep one of its controllers plugged in their PCs.
True, but it's kinda like Open Source vs Propietary: with religions, you have to trust the original witness of the supernatural phenomena in question, not even the Pope has claimed being able to resurrect the dead so fat chance of reproducing that any time soon. Meanwhile, with Science you're required only to trust on the impossibly huge number of educated scientists worldwide, most of which have an (ethical and economic) interest in proving the status quo *wrong*, to all conspire together in order to lie to you, and there's also the fact that becoming a scientist is open to anyone and everyone, in case they ever desire to.
We already have, all those were defined not because some guy high on Peyote thought it'd be real awesome if there were something called "dark matter", but because we saw the evidence of their effect in our experiments and had to give it a name.
In essence, we had the proof even before we knew they even existed.
So, are the things I mentioned testable or not? Sure you can use a model to explain it, but is that truly testing? I can make two separate models that end up with the same result. They both can't be right. There is only one history.
They are, we just lack the energy and mass to test them at the scale you're proposing for now. We do, however, have plenty of man-made objects in geostationary orbit, the only difference with your hypothetical artificial moon being of course the mass, which doesn't change the science one bit. It's similar to the rest (1), we've tested enough of its theoretical consequences that "they happened like this" is the simplest coherent explanation for the phenomena in question, though scientists are always open for a better (2) one if you've got it.
(1) At least, the well-formulated ones: small rodents do not evolve into elephants for the same reason you (hopefully) aren't your cousin's grandfather.
(2) "Better" in this case means "at least as well explained and researched", not just "different" as most theories by armchair scientists are.
Where did I mention religion? What in my comment makes you assume that I am a "fundamentalist whacko"? All I did was support TFA's point that no scientist has proven via experimentation everything they believe. It is literally impossible.
Prove it.
All scientist have some level in faith; faith that the scientific method works and faith that the models are correct. Just as you took it upon faith that I was some sort of "fundamentalist whacko".
Not really. If I say "if A then B", I'm not expressing "faith" in that A is true, only that if A is true, then so is B. Determining whether A is true or not is outside the statement's context, and in the case of science is something left to philosophers and logicians. Any problem you may have with logic and the scientific method, then, you have to take it up to them.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Close, but not quite. An untestable hypothesis is that: an untestable hypothesis, to be a religion it needs to provide the foundation for a system of worship. I can say that my cat created the universe yesterday complete with memories of everything we believe happened before, but unless I go and shower my cat with gifts in thanks it's still not a religion.
Calling all untestable hypothesis "religions" is an insult to nutjobs and crackpot theorists everywhere.
You hate changing the user experience for the sake of changing the user experience, so you'll change your user experience to a completely different one that doesn't even pay lip service to the one you switched from, and which recently changed the user experience for the sake of changing the user experience as well.
The "one language to rule them all" bit isn't about having everyone use the same language, but about having a language supported on every platform. Java, AFAIK, isn't supported on iOS which is why it's considered a "failure" in that respect, and obviously nobody outside Apple uses ObjC for anything serious so that one's dead as well.
Just because it works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. This seems to be the most common reaction to problems with computers. One user says such and such is broken, another user it works fine and they call him a liar.
Fixed that for you. Don't believe me? browse through any Windows or Apple support forum or hell, just look at Slashdot threads on the quality of Apple's laptops. One guy will say his screen cracked under normal use, ten guys will jump on him and call him an obvious Microsoft shill because Macs are built to last and that $300 Dell (that nobody even mentioned) would suffer the same thing right out of the factory and that all the Apple hating on Slashdot was getting sad and tiresome and how their pet elephant sat on top of theirs and the screen was perfect afterwards so it's clearly just FUD spread to taint Apple and Steve Jobs' good name and that they were really just holding it wrong when it cracked.
You can also spot similar things when discussing Windows installation procedures and ActiveDirectory, which also seem to degenerate quickly into "it doesn't work, it sucks"/"it works, you suck" shouting matches, but they're not as notorious as Apple's to be honest, perhaps due to the wildly mismatched lovers:haters ratio here at Slashdot.
$700 every three years still works quite nicely for Adobe, and let's be serious: for better or worse, you ain't switching to The GIMP any time soon.
Plus, the way I see it they get more money from Fortune 500 companies and the odd pro or two than they would from everyone else if they dropped their prices to $150-200 so no, I don't think they'll be dropping their prices either.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem with having all of this stuff just provided to everyone as entitlements/"rights". You wind up counting on people to contribute back, to carry their own weight... in short, to do the "right thing".
No, you wind up counting on people's greed, their desire to sleep alone in a proper bedroom instead of a shelter with God knows who, to eat whatever crap they want for however long they want instead of what the nutritionist from the government deemed an acceptable meal for the day, to hire whoever doctor they want whenever they want instead of having whoever the government assigned to them, and so on and so forth.
People love their vices, their shinies to show off and their right to be total jackasses, and they're ready to work their ass off to get them. It's how most of the world's socialist countries continue to grow and prosper after all.
Disclaimer: I'm a capitalist verging on libertarianism, I simply don't feel the need to misrepresent the opposing side just to gain favor for mine.
It is in the same category as denying somebody an education, for pretty much the same reasons.
My guess is, it means that if you lack the means to access the 'net, the government will provide you with one. Which we already have in the form of public libraries, but I'm guessing it'd be more widespread than that if it's officially recognized as a human right.
Owning stuff in this manner is an investment can be easily turned off from a remote source, and there is absolutely zero one can do about it. With books, someone would have to enter my residence unauthorized with a fairly large truck and haul stuff out.
Purposefully? yes. Accidentally however, all it takes is some bad luck with a roof leak and your books are all gone, nevermind a natural disaster of the scale of Katrina.
The ideal rather is a "cloud" service you can make local copies of, like GMail or Impulse. If they go belly up or get purchased by Gamestop (yes, I'm bitter) you still have your local backups available, but if a disaster hits your city and you're forced to evacuate your home, you can at least have the comfort that you'll be able to return to a normal life within minutes of buying another PC in case the one you have bites the dust.
I guess off-site backups would be another option for that too, but let's be honest: how many of us perform our backups on a timely manner? and how many of us then proceed to mail them to another city for safekeeping? thought so.
The problem in those cases are otherwise inocuous acts being illegal rather than the government being able to find out about it. After all, secrecy can be easily defeated by one government official tailing you for a day, and while legality can also be bypassed it's much harder to do so even for a police state.
That's because you're doing it wrong: if you have a deadline in an hour, what you should do is to put your boss in a spaceship travelling at near light speed, not go in it yourself.
Ah, so the people who create things are the leeches, and the people who pirate the works are the creators?
No, people that hold copyrights over their work are the leeches, feeding off their government-enforced monopoly at the expense of society, and people that actually *work* for a living instead of expecting to be paid for work their grandfathers did half a century ago are the creators of wealth. That ought to be obvious enough.
Really? You're going to all of that toxic, intellectually dishonest trouble just to justify your habit of ripping off entertainment?
Considering there's plenty of scientific studies showing that current copyright laws are, in fact, detrimental to society I believe it's you who's being intellectually dishonest just to justify his dream of someday "making it big" with an idea and never having to work on his life. And the saddest part is, I do think you're serious rather than a mere troll.
With a week's training, I'll bet the 1869 man could drive a car, use a cell phone, or browse the internet.
I'll take that bet. Try teaching 70-years-old people to drive a car, use a cellphone or browse the internet. Then remember they're people that saw those technologies be born and mature in front of their eyes throughout the years, while the 1869 man is not.
In fact, I'd bet if you took a hundred volunteers to teach a hundred 1869 men to do those things, after a week at least half your groups would've seen casualties from the 1869 man killing either himself or his teacher on account of the alleged "satanism", "dark magics" or such of the technologies in question. Sure they're Harvard alumni, but technology shock can be very powerful even for otherwise smart and clever people, and if you've taught old people you've probably seen it yourself.
So open that if you modify it then sell your Mac, you're liable for copyright infringement (see also: Psystar).
Apple has been a bunch of lawsuit-happy control freaks since before iOS was even dreamt up by Your Holiness Stevie.
It doesn't have any 'sacred cows' other than logic itself, it's just many scientists (wisely) ignore criticism that's not logical and well-researched itself since if they attended to every crackpot theorist and nutjob they'd be out of time to do their actual work, an attitude that sometimes comes across as being "sacred".
If there's such thing as a metaphor nazi, youÂre one. And if there isn't, there damn well should be.
How so? It seems like it would do the opposite by allowing good science without fear of political reprisal.
Because it has enough loopholes that they can still shut down any ideology they don't like, and given the examples they used to illustrate their ideology there's no question as to which side of the "debate" they belong.
If I had a penny for each mistake you made in your post, I'd be able to buy myself a Ferrari.
I have trouble deciding whether you fail more at theology than the 'creationists' do at physics and biology or the other way around, but either way it's a close fight.
I knew a well educated person that had a degree in chemistry that still thought airplanes flew because of the Bernoulli principle!
Heh, good one. That's almost as bad as thinking evolution deals with the origin of life ;)
Oh, wait.
Lack of viable offspring from crossbreeding is exactly how we tell one species apart from another. Evolution doesn't happen like in Pokemon, mice don't give birth to squirrels so if that's what you're expecting by "evolution", I'd suggest going back to fourth grade.
No, just their software. Their mice and keyboards are second to none, and I know more than a few gamers that wouldn't touch an X360 with a ten-foot pole but still keep one of its controllers plugged in their PCs.
True, but it's kinda like Open Source vs Propietary: with religions, you have to trust the original witness of the supernatural phenomena in question, not even the Pope has claimed being able to resurrect the dead so fat chance of reproducing that any time soon. Meanwhile, with Science you're required only to trust on the impossibly huge number of educated scientists worldwide, most of which have an (ethical and economic) interest in proving the status quo *wrong*, to all conspire together in order to lie to you, and there's also the fact that becoming a scientist is open to anyone and everyone, in case they ever desire to.
We already have, all those were defined not because some guy high on Peyote thought it'd be real awesome if there were something called "dark matter", but because we saw the evidence of their effect in our experiments and had to give it a name.
In essence, we had the proof even before we knew they even existed.
So, are the things I mentioned testable or not? Sure you can use a model to explain it, but is that truly testing? I can make two separate models that end up with the same result. They both can't be right. There is only one history.
They are, we just lack the energy and mass to test them at the scale you're proposing for now. We do, however, have plenty of man-made objects in geostationary orbit, the only difference with your hypothetical artificial moon being of course the mass, which doesn't change the science one bit. It's similar to the rest (1), we've tested enough of its theoretical consequences that "they happened like this" is the simplest coherent explanation for the phenomena in question, though scientists are always open for a better (2) one if you've got it.
(1) At least, the well-formulated ones: small rodents do not evolve into elephants for the same reason you (hopefully) aren't your cousin's grandfather.
(2) "Better" in this case means "at least as well explained and researched", not just "different" as most theories by armchair scientists are.
Where did I mention religion? What in my comment makes you assume that I am a "fundamentalist whacko"? All I did was support TFA's point that no scientist has proven via experimentation everything they believe. It is literally impossible.
Prove it.
All scientist have some level in faith; faith that the scientific method works and faith that the models are correct. Just as you took it upon faith that I was some sort of "fundamentalist whacko".
Not really. If I say "if A then B", I'm not expressing "faith" in that A is true, only that if A is true, then so is B. Determining whether A is true or not is outside the statement's context, and in the case of science is something left to philosophers and logicians. Any problem you may have with logic and the scientific method, then, you have to take it up to them.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Close, but not quite. An untestable hypothesis is that: an untestable hypothesis, to be a religion it needs to provide the foundation for a system of worship. I can say that my cat created the universe yesterday complete with memories of everything we believe happened before, but unless I go and shower my cat with gifts in thanks it's still not a religion.
Calling all untestable hypothesis "religions" is an insult to nutjobs and crackpot theorists everywhere.
You hate changing the user experience for the sake of changing the user experience, so you'll change your user experience to a completely different one that doesn't even pay lip service to the one you switched from, and which recently changed the user experience for the sake of changing the user experience as well.
Your logic is astounding.
The "one language to rule them all" bit isn't about having everyone use the same language, but about having a language supported on every platform. Java, AFAIK, isn't supported on iOS which is why it's considered a "failure" in that respect, and obviously nobody outside Apple uses ObjC for anything serious so that one's dead as well.
Just because it works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. This seems to be the most common reaction to problems with computers. One user says such and such is broken, another user it works fine and they call him a liar.
Fixed that for you. Don't believe me? browse through any Windows or Apple support forum or hell, just look at Slashdot threads on the quality of Apple's laptops. One guy will say his screen cracked under normal use, ten guys will jump on him and call him an obvious Microsoft shill because Macs are built to last and that $300 Dell (that nobody even mentioned) would suffer the same thing right out of the factory and that all the Apple hating on Slashdot was getting sad and tiresome and how their pet elephant sat on top of theirs and the screen was perfect afterwards so it's clearly just FUD spread to taint Apple and Steve Jobs' good name and that they were really just holding it wrong when it cracked.
You can also spot similar things when discussing Windows installation procedures and ActiveDirectory, which also seem to degenerate quickly into "it doesn't work, it sucks"/"it works, you suck" shouting matches, but they're not as notorious as Apple's to be honest, perhaps due to the wildly mismatched lovers:haters ratio here at Slashdot.
$700 every three years still works quite nicely for Adobe, and let's be serious: for better or worse, you ain't switching to The GIMP any time soon.
Plus, the way I see it they get more money from Fortune 500 companies and the odd pro or two than they would from everyone else if they dropped their prices to $150-200 so no, I don't think they'll be dropping their prices either.
BTW, Gimp is good for 4chan pics, but Photoshop is good for everything else.
So is The GIMP, as you'd know if you spent your time using it instead of pirating the latest Photoshop.