The right people can be voted in to power, but you have to start at the local level and you have to keep up a running dialogue with them. You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected.
And once they do get elected they immediately do an about-face and turn into "the wrong people".
"I am the senator. You are the citizen. You need to be quiet."
-- North Carolina State Senator Tommy Tucker (R), quoted by the Raleigh News and Observer, to Goldsboro News-Argus publisher Hal Tanner who was opposing legislation to change public notice requirements for local government.
Question #1: Why isn't there a Wikipedia page for Tucker featuring these quotes?
Question #2: What will the citizens of North Carolina do so, in two years, they will be able to tell Tucker "We are the citizens. You are no longer the senator. You need to be quiet"?
So, here is the core of it. If there is free will, there is no "the future". "The future" contains no "things" as part of that "everything", to know about.
You are begging the question. If there is no free will, then there is a "future" to know.
But that's a theological question for another day
This started as a theological question.
my point here is simply that your argument does not follow
My argument was, and and still is, that the ability to know (not just model) the future implies predetermination which in turn is incompatible with the existence of free will. Either may be possible, but not both.
You are getting confused by your own abstractions.
No, I am not.
Your stipulation is that the entity is "omniscient". We'll go with the meaning of "knows all facts about all things that are" as the meaning for the purposes of discussion, as you appear to be using it.
This is your definition, not mine. Please do not put words in my mouth, thank you. I referred to what is sometimes called "total" omniscience, that is knowledge of everything, period. You referred to what is sometimes called "inherent" omniscience, that is knowledge of everything that can be known, with the added stipulation that the future cannot be.
Now, if you exclude the future from the realm of knowledge then there is indeed no conflict with the existence of free will. However, all the religious people that I discussed the subject with, claimed that the scriptures support the notion that god does know the future, i.e., his omniscience is total.
Now, you may disagree with that claim, and that would be fine, but don't start calling other people "confused" just because you failed to ascertain which of the (legitimate!) definitions they used.
The difference here, is that the job of the CS was to upgrade the oven software
Then I humbly submit that you got the wrong person for the job.
A degree in CS is supposed to give you a theoretical basis. The practical skills you mostly get elsewhere: other courses, books, self study, co-op, open-source contribution, etc.
omniscience and preordination can be easily confused
Omniscience, that is knowing *everything*, includes knowledge of the future before it has happened. If an omniscient entity knows what actions I will take before I have taken them, it means that I have no choice but to take those actions, otherwise, the entity would be wrong, which contradicts the postulated omniscience.
"Total" omniscience requires preordination and is incompatible with the existence of free will.
If we postulate the goldfish in a fishbowl have free will, you can still make a large number of definitive statements about their outcome. Free choices and ultimate ends are two entirely different things.
But we are not just talking about outcomes, we're talking about omniscience, literally knowing *everything*, including the actual choice before it was made.
Omniscience is incompatible with free will. Knowing the outcome of every choice before it was made means that everything is preordained.
A simple example: There's a 1/4 cup of cold tea in front of me. I can either finish it or throw the tea remainder away (I have done both in similar situations in the past). If an omniscient entity already knows, as I am typing this sentence, whether I will drink it or not, then there is no choice, as I cannot not possibly choose the opposite action. And if I could, then the entity is not omniscient.
Most drivers don't change their cars' oil on their own.
There is a difference between knowing how to use a tool in the context of your job and how to fix it if it breaks. In the 2nd case, the tool becomes the focus and you're no longer acting in your primary capacity but rather in the capacity of a "tool fixer".
Personal anecdote: I use the toilet every day. I also clean it and can, should the need arise, try to unclog it with a plunger or a "snake". However, when we replaced the toilets in our house, I decided that it is worthwhile to me to pay somebody to do it.
[...] original comment said "Frankly the US government is just as nasty and corrupt as the rest[...]", against which examples of other, worse regimes is a quite effective argument.
Let's deconstruct that argument, shall we?
The AC gave a list of 8 regimes, with three of the examples constituting of dead ex-leaders. So, considering regimes ranging from 1917 (Example #4: USSR under Lenin) until today, given that we currently have over 200 countries and the tumultuous nature of the past century, a conservative estimate would be at least twice that number of distinct "regimes". I'm not a political historian, so I'll just take 400 as my estimate (feel free to correct me with hard data).
8 of which were claimed to be worse than the present-day US. A whopping 2%.
Unless you provide us with a more comprehensive list, you may want to reconsider the effectiveness of the argument.
"As nasty and corrupt as..."... China under Mao? Venezuela under Chavez? Cuba under Castro? The USSR under Lenin and Stalin? Cambodia under Pol Pot? The NPRK under the various Kims? Zimbabwe under Mugabe? Zaire/the Congo under Mobutu?
Are you trying to say that, if we rank all regimes in modern history by their level of corruption, the current US one would be in, what, 9th place?
Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.
Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.
Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?
When you are a third-grader being constantly bullied by an eighth-grader, you are not going to "fight fair". If he got you by the throat and you believe that your only chance of escaping is kicking him in the nuts, you will do it. If he makes your life miserable every single day and the teachers/parents will not interfere, you will consider picking up a pointed stick and shoving it in his eye.
He writes that ultimately, if the Internet can't be secured, and that the underlying amount of crime and fraud make the Internet useless and dangerous, then it indeed will lead to the tipping point where the result would be the death of the Internet.
The attempts at "securing" the Internet are what's killing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Plank #1: "With great power comes great personal responsibility".
All the rest can wait until after this gets implemented in practice.
While the latest MSVC produces fairly optimized x86 code (second to Intel's compiler), it's C++11 standard compliance is lacking.
See:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2011/09/12/10209291.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx
I had high expectations when Herb Sutter went to work for Microsoft but, so far, I am disappointed.
Obama [...] stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in.
Like Cordell Hull, Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, et al.?
Martin Luther King Jr.? Watergate? McCarthy?
There was plenty of domestic intelligence often aimed wildly at whoever was in the way.
The difference is that now it is aimed at everybody.
A disarmed society is not a crime-free society. Crime happens, you just don't get killed, that's all.
Outlawing arms does not result in a disarmed society.
Criminals would still manage to acquire weapons.
[...] it is well understood that the law is frequently immoral
The word you're looking for is amoral.
So you are obviously not voting the right people into office.
Obviously, since a person fit to govern will not want to.
The right people can be voted in to power, but you have to start at the local level and you have to keep up a running dialogue with them. You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected.
And once they do get elected they immediately do an about-face and turn into "the wrong people".
Rodgers is far from the only Republican who thinks that citizens should shut up and do as they are told.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html
Question #1: Why isn't there a Wikipedia page for Tucker featuring these quotes?
Question #2: What will the citizens of North Carolina do so, in two years, they will be able to tell Tucker "We are the citizens. You are no longer the senator. You need to be quiet"?
I'm disappointed in the parent poster for dissing the moderation system because it worked as intended.
Perhaps the OP meant that "interesting" would be a better fit than "insightful".
Reference: http://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml
So, here is the core of it. If there is free will, there is no "the future". "The future" contains no "things" as part of that "everything", to know about.
You are begging the question.
If there is no free will, then there is a "future" to know.
But that's a theological question for another day
This started as a theological question.
my point here is simply that your argument does not follow
My argument was, and and still is, that the ability to know (not just model) the future implies predetermination which in turn is incompatible with the existence of free will. Either may be possible, but not both.
How exactly does it differ from your argument?
You are getting confused by your own abstractions.
No, I am not.
Your stipulation is that the entity is "omniscient". We'll go with the meaning of "knows all facts about all things that are" as the meaning for the purposes of discussion, as you appear to be using it.
This is your definition, not mine. Please do not put words in my mouth, thank you.
I referred to what is sometimes called "total" omniscience, that is knowledge of everything, period.
You referred to what is sometimes called "inherent" omniscience, that is knowledge of everything that can be known, with the added stipulation that the future cannot be.
Now, if you exclude the future from the realm of knowledge then there is indeed no conflict with the existence of free will. However, all the religious people that I discussed the subject with, claimed that the scriptures support the notion that god does know the future, i.e., his omniscience is total.
Now, you may disagree with that claim, and that would be fine, but don't start calling other people "confused" just because you failed to ascertain which of the (legitimate!) definitions they used.
The difference here, is that the job of the CS was to upgrade the oven software
Then I humbly submit that you got the wrong person for the job.
A degree in CS is supposed to give you a theoretical basis.
The practical skills you mostly get elsewhere: other courses, books, self study, co-op, open-source contribution, etc.
If you don't, well...
omniscience and preordination can be easily confused
Omniscience, that is knowing *everything*, includes knowledge of the future before it has happened.
If an omniscient entity knows what actions I will take before I have taken them, it means that I have no choice but to take those actions, otherwise, the entity would be wrong, which contradicts the postulated omniscience.
"Total" omniscience requires preordination and is incompatible with the existence of free will.
Let's take the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He's made of spaghetti and two meatballs.
Wait...
J. Michael Straczynski was a Pastafarian???
If we postulate the goldfish in a fishbowl have free will, you can still make a large number of definitive statements about their outcome. Free choices and ultimate ends are two entirely different things.
But we are not just talking about outcomes, we're talking about omniscience, literally knowing *everything*, including the actual choice before it was made.
Omniscience is incompatible with free will.
Knowing the outcome of every choice before it was made means that everything is preordained.
A simple example:
There's a 1/4 cup of cold tea in front of me. I can either finish it or throw the tea remainder away (I have done both in similar situations in the past).
If an omniscient entity already knows, as I am typing this sentence, whether I will drink it or not, then there is no choice, as I cannot not possibly choose the opposite action. And if I could, then the entity is not omniscient.
[wild sci-fi speculation]: imagine that it is possible to "tweak" the Universe through some amazingly advanced technology.
That's pretty simple actually.
All the fundamental constants are specified in a config file. Just edit it, reboot the universe, and you're golden.
Yeah, aboot that, Canada is in America. Canadians ARE Americans. Did you mean US Citizens? If you did then you should have said that.
How many Canadians you know that refer to themselves as "Americans"?
Time for a car analogy.
Most drivers don't change their cars' oil on their own.
There is a difference between knowing how to use a tool in the context of your job and how to fix it if it breaks.
In the 2nd case, the tool becomes the focus and you're no longer acting in your primary capacity but rather in the capacity of a "tool fixer".
Personal anecdote:
I use the toilet every day. I also clean it and can, should the need arise, try to unclog it with a plunger or a "snake".
However, when we replaced the toilets in our house, I decided that it is worthwhile to me to pay somebody to do it.
[...] original comment said "Frankly the US government is just as nasty and corrupt as the rest[...]", against which examples of other, worse regimes is a quite effective argument.
Let's deconstruct that argument, shall we?
The AC gave a list of 8 regimes, with three of the examples constituting of dead ex-leaders.
So, considering regimes ranging from 1917 (Example #4: USSR under Lenin) until today, given that we currently have over 200 countries and the tumultuous nature of the past century, a conservative estimate would be at least twice that number of distinct "regimes". I'm not a political historian, so I'll just take 400 as my estimate (feel free to correct me with hard data).
8 of which were claimed to be worse than the present-day US.
A whopping 2%.
Unless you provide us with a more comprehensive list, you may want to reconsider the effectiveness of the argument.
"As nasty and corrupt as..." ... China under Mao? Venezuela under Chavez? Cuba under Castro? The USSR under Lenin and Stalin? Cambodia under Pol Pot? The NPRK under the various Kims? Zimbabwe under Mugabe? Zaire/the Congo under Mobutu?
Are you trying to say that, if we rank all regimes in modern history by their level of corruption, the current US one would be in, what, 9th place?
OK, correction accepted.
He can't, being a primary source...
Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.
Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.
Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?
When you are a third-grader being constantly bullied by an eighth-grader, you are not going to "fight fair".
If he got you by the throat and you believe that your only chance of escaping is kicking him in the nuts, you will do it.
If he makes your life miserable every single day and the teachers/parents will not interfere, you will consider picking up a pointed stick and shoving it in his eye.
It is called "asymmetrical warfare" for a reason.
Just remember that ISS is mostly used on internal servers. Netcraft doesn't and can't access that information.
Not true.
IIS may be mostly used on internal servers. The ISS is as external as you can get.
He writes that ultimately, if the Internet can't be secured, and that the underlying amount of crime and fraud make the Internet useless and dangerous, then it indeed will lead to the tipping point where the result would be the death of the Internet.
The attempts at "securing" the Internet are what's killing it.