I'll bet a lot that MS will suddenly invent an instant-on bootup environment that works the way that *Microsoft* wants, with just enough of a Windows-specific feature edge to edge out Linux altogether. Manufacturers like Asus will, sadly, vote the bottom line.
Constitutional immunity for government agencies and businesses like the RIAA will be impossible. Congress will wise up and realize the more they attack the privacy of individual citizens the more they will be attacking their own privacy as well. And people like that have a helluva lot more dirty secrets and a helluva lot more assets to pay fines without declaring bankruptcy.
You ignore the fact that there are already many constitutional immunities, some so strong that a special law was needed to GRANT citizens the right to sue the government: the Federal Tort Claims Act. Sovereign immunity is plenty constitutional. And you know, Congress has exempted itself from almost every annoying law it has passed for general business.
What is wrong with/. that a misinformed opinion of this kind is +4? It may have to do with the speaker's having expressed him/herself with passion in the popular groove of opinion, but there is a good deal more heat than light in the parent comment.
Why must we insist free will can be exercised only when we are aware of the existence of a choice? In programming terms, awareness of choice and of choosing may be a separate register where data gets written for reflection after the choice has been made. The original choice can be freely made even if unconsciously made, can it not? An unconscious process is not necessarily dictated by biology, particularly if the algorithms for choice-making were constructed with much soul-searching and labor of thought. If it were otherwise, our being good only because of possible punishment also disproves free will. If I weigh and reject a bad act based on, say, an oath I've taken rather than on a re-evaluation of whether the act should be classed as good or bad, have I suffered the abrogation of my free will? E.g. I agree with my buddies in AA that drinking is bad and I will never do it again, and then turn down a social glass of wine, in knee-jerk fashion, that probably would not be harmful under the circumstances-- I had freely chosen to make my reaction automatic, and it is automatic. Was there no free will in making it?
This refers back to TFA's observation that some more complicated processes, unlike a simple button-press algorithm we set up in advance, may be fundamentally different from the kind of process involved in the experiment. To oversimplify, if we take more than seven seconds; if, in fact, we take seven days, to reach a major decision, such that consciouness of making the choice overlaps extensively with the unconscious process that informs it-- why would we think the decision bereft of free will? Does not the overlap mean there is a refinement of intention in the mental feedback loop between the conscious and the unconscious? And if the conscious is a part, therefore, of an unconscious process, then the entire process must be one the self is aware of, something we can claim we have chosen.
Maybe our big decisions are formed out of many smaller, some more automatic, decisions, but it is not logical that we have no awareness of the process and cannot exert conscious influence. If that is not choice, what is?
I've heard repeatedly that old folks get much pleasure from reminiscence. As insipid as this LifeBits project seems, it may aid in that and serve a good purpose for many, if it is ever possible to ferret out the grains of wheat from the chaff.
So how do we know the ubiquitous compiled binaries of Windows are actually compiled from the same source code made "public" in this way? With MS I presume dissimulation with every disclosure.
Actually, many if not most states have personal property taxes. Not just auto excise tax like we have here in dear old Taxachusetts... I mean a tax where they can come in to your home, note you have a $20,000.00 Steinway, and TAX you on the value. (If you don't let them in they could be free to asssume what they like and let you prove them wrong.) It's just that in Massachusetts at least, this tax is not enforced in peoples' homes, probably because the assessors would be shot. HOWEVER-- it is sure as Hell enforced on BUSINESSES. I had a visit in my business office from an assessor who noted down the type and number of desks, typewriters, computers and so on, and I received a personal property tax bill a bit later. (That's a bill you have to pay every year, by the way.)
I'm talking about VR theaters where you stand, or are suspended, in a room with eyephones and earphones and a controller that mimics a gun, or whatever. Or instead of wearing eyephones you could be cocooned in a 3D display-- sensors to tell if you try to turn, jump, etc.
BOY do "arcades", if that's what we'll still call them, have a future.
Microsoft has in the past even gone so far as to wrap their functions in other functions with delay loops, and not document the originals, reserving them for their own use, so that competitors' software runs artificially poorly on their operating system!
The problem is not with capitalism. Unduly powerful entitites can arise under socialism or communism. The problem is with corporations that have been allowed to grow too large and powerful. Rather, we should say the problem is corporatism. And corporatism is fascism-- which the government allows by proxy, in the public sector.
How about keeping your sensitive stuff under heavy encryption on a secure website or machine at your offices? And uploading sensitive stuff obtained abroad under the same encryption to the same site?
You're so right it hurts. It's time everyone realizes that corporatism is a variation on fascism. Ironic that capitalism lets corporate interests get so large they grow arbitrary and oppressive with impunity. And government? Suddenly the tail is wagging the dog and the system we have isn't captitalism anymore. (It was the Japanese Zaibatsu that pushed Hiro Hito into WWII.)
It is corporatism, and corporatism is fascism. Thankfully since we're also a democracy, there is at least a glimmer of hope our next government will rein in corporate preferences.
Boy could we start a flamewar on whether socializing the health care system would ruin it. I guess I'll just say note, not everyone agrees with that proposition. Anything that takes the insurers and their profiteering from their role as gatekeepers to the doctors and hospitals *has* to mean more is available for Joe Citizen. I've yet to hear a good refutation of that proposition.
I would rather have a long chain of evidence that protects me personally, so when the shit hits the fan and ligitation starts, I have something to prove that it did not happen due to my incompetence.
Of course, if this fellow *is* incompetent, he has a particularly wise strategy to show the most likely cause was not responsible for the effect.
Utah? What is so backward about Utah? It wasn't in Utah that the House passed a bill to simplify math by making PI equal to 3. (That bill, in whatever state it was, died in the Senate. I wish I had the reference or some proof it's not an urban legend.)
The actual text maybe copyrightable, but one still has fair use, one can excerp bits and rewrite other parts. This ruling does not stop people drawing attention to the fac that they are being bullied. It's daft but its not fatal.
Hi, I'm a U.S. lawyer and I agree with you. (How often have you heard that?)
Besides, there is an absolute safe harbor for persons wishing to post about scams online. Truth is a defense to libel. And for that matter, to slander per se. Just be sure what you post is the truth, and they can't touch you. They might sue, of course, but it would be the kind of case that could be dismissed on affidavits and summary judgment. And, with judicious use of Requests for Admission, you might even make the pay them cost of proving true things they failed to admit. It's speculative to say so, but you might even get attorneys' fees and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit or pleading. (Don't trust this as legal advice, of course.)
The important teaching of this decision is that sites which ENCOURAGE the posting of "scams" rather than simply soliciting the posting of stories about the subject, be they good or bad, do meet the legal test for defamation. Perhaps this is how it should be; or you might think so if your small business were attacked with lies and attempts to mobilize the blogosphere.
Now before the negative mod points come whistling in like mortar rounds, let me say I'm all in favor of using the Net to expose scams, and doing so should be free from repercussions. But you know, that's the way it IS, right now. Just tell the truth and don't say "Company X is a sleaze, submit your stories to prove it". Is it much different, or less satisfactory, to say "In the interest of performing a public service for our readership, we invite you to post comments, good or bad, about the business practices of Company X"? Because you can do that. (Though only the foolish would rely on an internet post such as this one.)
And for God's sake, don't serve ads for competitors of Company X, or suggest your blog will dissipate into the blogosphere if you get paid. You CAN use the net for People Power with very few accommodations to law.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean TOE the line, not TOW the line-- as in keep your toes on the line, not as in be sure you tow it from place to place.
Sorry but I love English and it bugs me to see it mangled.
What do you bet M$ will make sure it can't handle NTFS?
I'll bet a lot that MS will suddenly invent an instant-on bootup environment that works the way that *Microsoft* wants, with just enough of a Windows-specific feature edge to edge out Linux altogether. Manufacturers like Asus will, sadly, vote the bottom line.
You ignore the fact that there are already many constitutional immunities, some so strong that a special law was needed to GRANT citizens the right to sue the government: the Federal Tort Claims Act. Sovereign immunity is plenty constitutional. And you know, Congress has exempted itself from almost every annoying law it has passed for general business.
What is wrong with
Agree completely.
Why must we insist free will can be exercised only when we are aware of the existence of a choice? In programming terms, awareness of choice and of choosing may be a separate register where data gets written for reflection after the choice has been made. The original choice can be freely made even if unconsciously made, can it not? An unconscious process is not necessarily dictated by biology, particularly if the algorithms for choice-making were constructed with much soul-searching and labor of thought. If it were otherwise, our being good only because of possible punishment also disproves free will. If I weigh and reject a bad act based on, say, an oath I've taken rather than on a re-evaluation of whether the act should be classed as good or bad, have I suffered the abrogation of my free will? E.g. I agree with my buddies in AA that drinking is bad and I will never do it again, and then turn down a social glass of wine, in knee-jerk fashion, that probably would not be harmful under the circumstances-- I had freely chosen to make my reaction automatic, and it is automatic. Was there no free will in making it?
This refers back to TFA's observation that some more complicated processes, unlike a simple button-press algorithm we set up in advance, may be fundamentally different from the kind of process involved in the experiment. To oversimplify, if we take more than seven seconds; if, in fact, we take seven days, to reach a major decision, such that consciouness of making the choice overlaps extensively with the unconscious process that informs it-- why would we think the decision bereft of free will? Does not the overlap mean there is a refinement of intention in the mental feedback loop between the conscious and the unconscious? And if the conscious is a part, therefore, of an unconscious process, then the entire process must be one the self is aware of, something we can claim we have chosen.
Maybe our big decisions are formed out of many smaller, some more automatic, decisions, but it is not logical that we have no awareness of the process and cannot exert conscious influence. If that is not choice, what is?
Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon? --We already have been. His name is Karl Rove.
Microsoft has too much money, and Gordon Bell has *way* too much time. Look at what excesses of those two commodities has done for Paris Hilton.
I've heard repeatedly that old folks get much pleasure from reminiscence. As insipid as this LifeBits project seems, it may aid in that and serve a good purpose for many, if it is ever possible to ferret out the grains of wheat from the chaff.
So how do we know the ubiquitous compiled binaries of Windows are actually compiled from the same source code made "public" in this way? With MS I presume dissimulation with every disclosure.
Never try to discuss nuclear physics with a pig. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
Then again, it might be worth $200.00 per hour to annoy a lawyer, if that's all you wanted...
Actually, many if not most states have personal property taxes. Not just auto excise tax like we have here in dear old Taxachusetts... I mean a tax where they can come in to your home, note you have a $20,000.00 Steinway, and TAX you on the value. (If you don't let them in they could be free to asssume what they like and let you prove them wrong.) It's just that in Massachusetts at least, this tax is not enforced in peoples' homes, probably because the assessors would be shot. HOWEVER-- it is sure as Hell enforced on BUSINESSES. I had a visit in my business office from an assessor who noted down the type and number of desks, typewriters, computers and so on, and I received a personal property tax bill a bit later. (That's a bill you have to pay every year, by the way.)
Just exactly what do you think that guarantee would be worth, considering the effort of enforcing it?
I'm talking about VR theaters where you stand, or are suspended, in a room with eyephones and earphones and a controller that mimics a gun, or whatever. Or instead of wearing eyephones you could be cocooned in a 3D display-- sensors to tell if you try to turn, jump, etc.
BOY do "arcades", if that's what we'll still call them, have a future.
The problem is not with capitalism. Unduly powerful entitites can arise under socialism or communism. The problem is with corporations that have been allowed to grow too large and powerful. Rather, we should say the problem is corporatism. And corporatism is fascism-- which the government allows by proxy, in the public sector.
How about keeping your sensitive stuff under heavy encryption on a secure website or machine at your offices? And uploading sensitive stuff obtained abroad under the same encryption to the same site?
They'd still want to if all of the high-bandwidth-users basically paid up and kept their consumption the same.
It is corporatism, and corporatism is fascism. Thankfully since we're also a democracy, there is at least a glimmer of hope our next government will rein in corporate preferences.
Boy could we start a flamewar on whether socializing the health care system would ruin it. I guess I'll just say note, not everyone agrees with that proposition. Anything that takes the insurers and their profiteering from their role as gatekeepers to the doctors and hospitals *has* to mean more is available for Joe Citizen. I've yet to hear a good refutation of that proposition.
Of course, if this fellow *is* incompetent, he has a particularly wise strategy to show the most likely cause was not responsible for the effect.
Utah? What is so backward about Utah? It wasn't in Utah that the House passed a bill to simplify math by making PI equal to 3. (That bill, in whatever state it was, died in the Senate. I wish I had the reference or some proof it's not an urban legend.)
Hi, I'm a U.S. lawyer and I agree with you. (How often have you heard that?)
Besides, there is an absolute safe harbor for persons wishing to post about scams online. Truth is a defense to libel. And for that matter, to slander per se. Just be sure what you post is the truth, and they can't touch you. They might sue, of course, but it would be the kind of case that could be dismissed on affidavits and summary judgment. And, with judicious use of Requests for Admission, you might even make the pay them cost of proving true things they failed to admit. It's speculative to say so, but you might even get attorneys' fees and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit or pleading. (Don't trust this as legal advice, of course.)
The important teaching of this decision is that sites which ENCOURAGE the posting of "scams" rather than simply soliciting the posting of stories about the subject, be they good or bad, do meet the legal test for defamation. Perhaps this is how it should be; or you might think so if your small business were attacked with lies and attempts to mobilize the blogosphere.
Now before the negative mod points come whistling in like mortar rounds, let me say I'm all in favor of using the Net to expose scams, and doing so should be free from repercussions. But you know, that's the way it IS, right now. Just tell the truth and don't say "Company X is a sleaze, submit your stories to prove it". Is it much different, or less satisfactory, to say "In the interest of performing a public service for our readership, we invite you to post comments, good or bad, about the business practices of Company X"? Because you can do that. (Though only the foolish would rely on an internet post such as this one.)
And for God's sake, don't serve ads for competitors of Company X, or suggest your blog will dissipate into the blogosphere if you get paid. You CAN use the net for People Power with very few accommodations to law.
And I would like to point out that at his death, Beethoven was distinctly middle-class and Mozart died a pauper.
You've never seen poll questions, have you? It all depends on how the question is phrased:
1) Should we (AT&T) slow down some kinds of uses you can make of your unlimited pipe; or
2) Should we throttle the bandwidth hogs who decrease the bandwidth available to YOU.
That's what leading questions are all about...
Doesn't mean much if we're barred from examining the peer-review databases.