Lying is generally immoral, no question there. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal though.
There are plenty of magazines out there that review new products that appeal to their demographics. Read the reviews, avoid the bad products. If the magazine is bribed somehow by the company, you should be reading many different reviews and compare, as well as researching comments by individual consumers. Occasionally, you will get shafted. Then it's your turn to notify others of the company lie. Once this becomes standard procedure and people let companies know that lies will not be tolerated, it will stop or at least decrease to an acceptable level.
No legislation necessary. Just a little thought and a little effort.
So is it the job of the consumer to wade through all the B.S tossed at them and discover the truth?
Yes. It's called scepticism. Try it out some time. It does wonders in fereting out the truth.
Sales tactics need to be regulated far more than they are.
<sarcasm>Yes, that's what we all need: more government intrusion.</sarcasm>
Why is it that whenever a problem arises that is even remotely challenging to ones intellect, most people instantly call for government intervention? "Please Government, we don't want to think for ourselves, make our decisions for us!"
Ignorance is a choice, and if you make that choice then you should suffer the consequences when you get shafted. Don't make me pay for it and limit my choices by calling on the government to make decisions for everyone.
Parents are genetically willing to die for their children, and thus will obviously be willing to spend an infinite amount of money to fulfil their needs.
I mostly agree. However, you are wrong where you draw the line between needs and frivolities like a popsicle stick. My father had no problems telling me to go soak my head whenever I asked for something stupid. That's all it takes.
Everyone is using XML to do away with specialized grammars for every problem domain. The human element is always the weakest and the slowest. If you can simplify things for the impementor by using a spec that is well known and in which it is relatively easy to reason, then you have eliminated a great problem. I would love it everyone would exercise a little brain muscle and just learn lambda calculus, but that probably won't happen any time soon. So we'll just have to make due with the lowest-common denominator which is XML (which is self-documenting if written properly - so that's ONE nice feature).
A mix of the best of both worlds would be the ideal solution. Engineer our DNA to produce metal skin to survive temperature extremes, greater mental capacities, etc.
I don't deny that something could have happened. But your imposition of our concepts to a situation outside of our boundaries was clearly wrong; that's all I was establishing.
Besides, burden of proof is on "something happened" as evidence and theories clearly imply "nothing" so far.
Your mistake is that you are applying the bias of your observations of our universe to the conditions of creation and pre-creation where it makes no sense to do so. Theoretically, there can exist universes where causality does not exist or it is even reversed! The logic of our existence makes sense only within the bounds of our universe. Outside these boundaries (ie. another universe, or before our universe was created), all bets are off. Who knows what happened? Even the belief that "something happened" is a bias we impose.
Actually this is not correct. The truth is that there was no matter in our Universe prior to the Big Bang, before that event it was just an empty plain of nothingness (a void--neither with matter or energy. It just was.)
An event, by definition, is an occurrence in space-time. If no matter or energy existed prior to the Big Bang, then no space-time events could have taken place (since what else causes events but the interactions of matter and energy?). Since no events occurred prior to the Big Bang, it makes no sense to speak of time prior to the BB.
because Time exists as a construct only to prevent all events from happening simultaneously
Let me try approaching this from another angle: you are speaking of time as if it were an absolute, but it is not. Time is extremely malleable and completely relative to the observers' frame of reference (as explained in the theories of relativity). This is observed fact. The deeper the gravity well, the slower the progression of time.
Since at the beginning of the universe, everything was compressed into a singularity and infinitely (or near) dense, time would actually stop. No time... at all. Once the singularity exploded and began expanding, the gravity well began to smooth out and time started running.
So you see, the Big Bang and infinite time are mutually exclusive beliefs. Big Bang, infinite time; pick one. There exist physics theories which postulate infinite time (or something similar), but the Big Bang will not allow it.
Since it doesn't work, or at least I haven't the power (and I dobut anyone does), I'd have to say that it's untrue.
Merely because you do not know how, does not mean you cannot. Your brain is mostly autonomous and little reaches your consciousness; people have trained themselsves to consciously control certain functions, so whos to say what else can be retrained?
Just an added note since we're discussing outlandish theories:
since the Universe didn't come into existance and die out at the same instant, we can conjecture that Time pre-existed the Big Bang.
Keep in mind that all of reality is merely a product of our perceptions. This raises the possibility that all events have happened simultaneously and the linear progression of events is imposed by our minds.
I disagree. [...] Time exists only to prevent all events from happening simultaneously, since the Universe didn't come into existance and die out at the same instant, we can conjecture that Time pre-existed the Big Bang.
You can disagree and conjecture all you like, but that doesn't make it so; reality need not conform to your perceptions or aesthetic tastes. Until you can provide some coherent theory which is testable against reality, this is merely hand waving.
But since hand waving can sometimes be fun:
Time did exist before the Big Bang, there just wasn't a reference point from which to measure events.
There were no events before the Big Bang (since the it is the beginning of our universe), hence we can conclude that time essentially began there. If nothing existed before the Big Bang (ie. no space-time events), then can time really be said to have existed? In other words, if nothing happened until the Big Bang, can anything really be said to have existed "beforehand"?
what is holding planets together? what is holding stars together? what is holding solar systems together (planets in orbits)? what is holding galaxies together? why would a black hole form in the first place? A black hole is a star that collapsed under its own gravity, but that wouldn't work in your scenario.
I don't think your theory can even explain how stars ore held together. The expansion pressure of fusion is countered by the crunch of gravity in classical phyics, yet you state that gravity will be pushing with the expansion pressure. Stars wouldn't even form under your scenario.
I'm not saying your idea isn't possible, but you'd have to explain many common phenomena before people would even begin to consider it.
Time did not exist before the Big Bang. It is non-sensical to ponder what happened "before" it or to say that the Big Bang was dependent on something "before" (in your case, a infinite chain of Big Crunches).
The main difference is that the RIAA and MPAA exploit copyright and erode the public domain in an attempt to horde their assets. Instead, the Linux source is openly shared in the interests of co-operation and growth and this company is trying to exploit this openness by stealing code without giving back. In both cases, the "information is free" attitude supports openness and sharing of information, not closing and hording the information (as the RIAA and this company). The attitude is not as contradictory as you make it seem.
They couldn't be convinced of why it should be a right to make your own mp3s/oggs, etc.
Simple enough: Ask them if they feel they should have the right to take apart their car to fix something. How about dismantling two cars you bought and building a new one one out of the parts? How about tinkering with any physical object you have purchased? Once you buy an object, it's yours to do with as you please. Once you buy music, it should be yours to play/listen to how you please. It should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR car, just as it should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR CDs/music.
"Web services is currently held up--in my opinion--by things like security and reliability," said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk.
Doesn't that translate to "They won't let us do it because it doesn't work."?
No, it's more like, "webservices are incredibly fucked up because the people writing this stuff don't know what the hell they are doing."
Unfortunately, the same can be said for many other things ("the world is incredibly fucked up because the people running it don't know what the hell they are doing").
Would you pay $129 for a piece of memory that claimed to be manufactured in an environmentaly friendly way, when the "regular" memory of the same type and size was only $59?
Yes. It would have to be clearly marked so I would know the reason for the difference.
Copyright says you have NO freedom to a work others have created. Zero. None. The GPL grants you freedom to use, view, modify and distribute the work given that you agree to certain conditions. That is indeed more freedom than "none". BSD certainly grants more freedom (almost to the point of placing in the public domain), but that in no way lessens the freedom granted by the GPL. If you're going to advocate a position, advocate it rationally, not with clearly untrue propaganda.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. The "spooky action at a distance" you are referring to has to do with observations, not imposed changes. As soon as you try to modify the particle it will lose decoherence and will no longer be entangled with its partner.
But once your obfuscated URL is discovered - and discovering it is trivial - then the secret is out, and what little protection it did provide is lost until you can change the obfuscation.
So in other words, locking down the system is a URL change away, which exactly parallels the password situation. In fact, if you do it right (cryptographically secure random hash strings), a URL is more secure than a password. A secure scheme: an encryption layer so it's impossible to snoop the URLs, (at least) 128-bit crypto-secure URLs and you have yourself a capability-secure system.
See these for more info on capability-based security: E rights EROS
Discovering the URL is not trivial if you do it right. It becomes a problem of guessing a 128-bit string, or cracking the connection encryption keys. MUCH more secure than passwords which are typically no longer than 64-bits and alpha-numeric limited (effectively limiting them to around 32-bits - much less if you factor in how much people use english words).
Slashdot Mirror
SmallTalk is type safe. It is dynamically typed, but still safe.
Orthogonal ideas:
-dynamic vs static typing
-strong vs weak typing
I'd be curious to see one of the problems where weak type checking allows for a "better" solution.
dynamic typing != weak typing
Dynamic typing is the anti-thesis to static typing. Strong typing is the anti-thesis to weak typing. For example:
C/C++: static, weak typing
Ruby, Lisp: dynamic, strong typing
Ocaml: static, strong typing
(not sure of an example of dynamic, weak typing)
Weak typing is certainly bad, dynamic vs. static typing is still an open issue however.
Lying is generally immoral, no question there. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal though.
There are plenty of magazines out there that review new products that appeal to their demographics. Read the reviews, avoid the bad products. If the magazine is bribed somehow by the company, you should be reading many different reviews and compare, as well as researching comments by individual consumers. Occasionally, you will get shafted. Then it's your turn to notify others of the company lie. Once this becomes standard procedure and people let companies know that lies will not be tolerated, it will stop or at least decrease to an acceptable level.
No legislation necessary. Just a little thought and a little effort.
So is it the job of the consumer to wade through all the B.S tossed at them and discover the truth?
Yes. It's called scepticism. Try it out some time. It does wonders in fereting out the truth.
Sales tactics need to be regulated far more than they are.
<sarcasm>Yes, that's what we all need: more government intrusion.</sarcasm>
Why is it that whenever a problem arises that is even remotely challenging to ones intellect, most people instantly call for government intervention? "Please Government, we don't want to think for ourselves, make our decisions for us!"
Ignorance is a choice, and if you make that choice then you should suffer the consequences when you get shafted. Don't make me pay for it and limit my choices by calling on the government to make decisions for everyone.
Parents are genetically willing to die for their children, and thus will obviously be willing to spend an infinite amount of money to fulfil their needs.
I mostly agree. However, you are wrong where you draw the line between needs and frivolities like a popsicle stick. My father had no problems telling me to go soak my head whenever I asked for something stupid. That's all it takes.
Everyone is using XML to do away with specialized grammars for every problem domain. The human element is always the weakest and the slowest. If you can simplify things for the impementor by using a spec that is well known and in which it is relatively easy to reason, then you have eliminated a great problem. I would love it everyone would exercise a little brain muscle and just learn lambda calculus, but that probably won't happen any time soon. So we'll just have to make due with the lowest-common denominator which is XML (which is self-documenting if written properly - so that's ONE nice feature).
A mix of the best of both worlds would be the ideal solution. Engineer our DNA to produce metal skin to survive temperature extremes, greater mental capacities, etc.
I don't deny that something could have happened. But your imposition of our concepts to a situation outside of our boundaries was clearly wrong; that's all I was establishing.
Besides, burden of proof is on "something happened" as evidence and theories clearly imply "nothing" so far.
Your mistake is that you are applying the bias of your observations of our universe to the conditions of creation and pre-creation where it makes no sense to do so. Theoretically, there can exist universes where causality does not exist or it is even reversed! The logic of our existence makes sense only within the bounds of our universe. Outside these boundaries (ie. another universe, or before our universe was created), all bets are off. Who knows what happened? Even the belief that "something happened" is a bias we impose.
Actually this is not correct. The truth is that there was no matter in our Universe prior to the Big Bang, before that event it was just an empty plain of nothingness (a void--neither with matter or energy. It just was.)
An event, by definition, is an occurrence in space-time. If no matter or energy existed prior to the Big Bang, then no space-time events could have taken place (since what else causes events but the interactions of matter and energy?). Since no events occurred prior to the Big Bang, it makes no sense to speak of time prior to the BB.
because Time exists as a construct only to prevent all events from happening simultaneously
Let me try approaching this from another angle: you are speaking of time as if it were an absolute, but it is not. Time is extremely malleable and completely relative to the observers' frame of reference (as explained in the theories of relativity). This is observed fact. The deeper the gravity well, the slower the progression of time.
Since at the beginning of the universe, everything was compressed into a singularity and infinitely (or near) dense, time would actually stop. No time... at all. Once the singularity exploded and began expanding, the gravity well began to smooth out and time started running.
So you see, the Big Bang and infinite time are mutually exclusive beliefs. Big Bang, infinite time; pick one. There exist physics theories which postulate infinite time (or something similar), but the Big Bang will not allow it.
Since it doesn't work, or at least I haven't the power (and I dobut anyone does), I'd have to say that it's untrue.
Merely because you do not know how, does not mean you cannot. Your brain is mostly autonomous and little reaches your consciousness; people have trained themselsves to consciously control certain functions, so whos to say what else can be retrained?
Just an added note since we're discussing outlandish theories:
since the Universe didn't come into existance and die out at the same instant, we can conjecture that Time pre-existed the Big Bang.
Keep in mind that all of reality is merely a product of our perceptions. This raises the possibility that all events have happened simultaneously and the linear progression of events is imposed by our minds.
I disagree. [...] Time exists only to prevent all events from happening simultaneously, since the Universe didn't come into existance and die out at the same instant, we can conjecture that Time pre-existed the Big Bang.
You can disagree and conjecture all you like, but that doesn't make it so; reality need not conform to your perceptions or aesthetic tastes. Until you can provide some coherent theory which is testable against reality, this is merely hand waving.
But since hand waving can sometimes be fun:
Time did exist before the Big Bang, there just wasn't a reference point from which to measure events.
There were no events before the Big Bang (since the it is the beginning of our universe), hence we can conclude that time essentially began there. If nothing existed before the Big Bang (ie. no space-time events), then can time really be said to have existed? In other words, if nothing happened until the Big Bang, can anything really be said to have existed "beforehand"?
Then,
what is holding planets together?
what is holding stars together?
what is holding solar systems together (planets in orbits)?
what is holding galaxies together?
why would a black hole form in the first place? A black hole is a star that collapsed under its own gravity, but that wouldn't work in your scenario.
I don't think your theory can even explain how stars ore held together. The expansion pressure of fusion is countered by the crunch of gravity in classical phyics, yet you state that gravity will be pushing with the expansion pressure. Stars wouldn't even form under your scenario.
I'm not saying your idea isn't possible, but you'd have to explain many common phenomena before people would even begin to consider it.
Time did not exist before the Big Bang. It is non-sensical to ponder what happened "before" it or to say that the Big Bang was dependent on something "before" (in your case, a infinite chain of Big Crunches).
Of course, now that we know how the universe works, it will spontaneously change into something completely unrecognizable. :-)
You need moisture for griminess. :-)
The main difference is that the RIAA and MPAA exploit copyright and erode the public domain in an attempt to horde their assets. Instead, the Linux source is openly shared in the interests of co-operation and growth and this company is trying to exploit this openness by stealing code without giving back. In both cases, the "information is free" attitude supports openness and sharing of information, not closing and hording the information (as the RIAA and this company). The attitude is not as contradictory as you make it seem.
Back in the "good old days", operating systems weren't portable, so you were locked in from the start.
Bah! Back in the REAL "good old days", we didn't even have operating systems.
They couldn't be convinced of why it should be a right to make your own mp3s/oggs, etc.
Simple enough: Ask them if they feel they should have the right to take apart their car to fix something. How about dismantling two cars you bought and building a new one one out of the parts? How about tinkering with any physical object you have purchased? Once you buy an object, it's yours to do with as you please. Once you buy music, it should be yours to play/listen to how you please. It should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR car, just as it should not be illegal to tinker with YOUR CDs/music.
"Web services is currently held up--in my opinion--by things like security and reliability," said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk.
Doesn't that translate to "They won't let us do it because it doesn't work."?
No, it's more like, "webservices are incredibly fucked up because the people writing this stuff don't know what the hell they are doing."
Unfortunately, the same can be said for many other things ("the world is incredibly fucked up because the people running it don't know what the hell they are doing").
Would you pay $129 for a piece of memory that claimed to be manufactured in an environmentaly friendly way, when the "regular" memory of the same type and size was only $59?
Yes. It would have to be clearly marked so I would know the reason for the difference.
Copyright says you have NO freedom to a work others have created. Zero. None. The GPL grants you freedom to use, view, modify and distribute the work given that you agree to certain conditions. That is indeed more freedom than "none". BSD certainly grants more freedom (almost to the point of placing in the public domain), but that in no way lessens the freedom granted by the GPL. If you're going to advocate a position, advocate it rationally, not with clearly untrue propaganda.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. The "spooky action at a distance" you are referring to has to do with observations, not imposed changes. As soon as you try to modify the particle it will lose decoherence and will no longer be entangled with its partner.
But once your obfuscated URL is discovered - and discovering it is trivial - then the secret is out, and what little protection it did provide is lost until you can change the obfuscation.
So in other words, locking down the system is a URL change away, which exactly parallels the password situation. In fact, if you do it right (cryptographically secure random hash strings), a URL is more secure than a password. A secure scheme: an encryption layer so it's impossible to snoop the URLs, (at least) 128-bit crypto-secure URLs and you have yourself a capability-secure system.
See these for more info on capability-based security:
E rights
EROS
Discovering the URL is not trivial if you do it right. It becomes a problem of guessing a 128-bit string, or cracking the connection encryption keys. MUCH more secure than passwords which are typically no longer than 64-bits and alpha-numeric limited (effectively limiting them to around 32-bits - much less if you factor in how much people use english words).