For some people, science fiction is just a plot device for exploring present issues and conditions using science as a metaphore/backdrop, particularly given the intergalactic politics. Consider Lucas's use of machine as people and people as machines.
I suppose the term is too broad for purists given this discussion, but Star Wars is considered by many to be sci-fi. "Space Opera" might be a subgenre, but it doesn't preclude sci-fi ness. Especially since Star Wars involves; mass production of items (post assembly line technology), technological advancements, scientifically based descriptions (condensers, robots, trash compactors, buttons, electronics, etc.)
Albeit, the Jedi mess with the catagorization, since they have a romantic (as opposed to modern) twinge to them, but still....
Fine, but then communities deserve a much bigger slice of the pie than they're getting to promote this music. Why should the music industry get this resource so cheaply?
It's not stealing if you download music because music isn't protected by property laws. It's protected by copyright laws. Violating copyright laws (i.e. using information without a liscense to it) carries a different set of penalties than theft does.
Physical possessions and the right to liscense information are not treated identically under the law. There's been a huge push in recent years to blur the difference.
Your suggestion is ludicrous in the extreme.
ludicrous or no, this is the law as it's currently written, and as it has been for the past 200 plus years.
Exactly. Just like the US trying to fight the Vietnam war to a standstill was slow suicide for the vastly more powerful U.S., simply responding to terrorism on a tit-for-tat basis is not going to prevent terrorism. A hardware advantage doesn't matter much if you're sitting around waiting to have a shopping mall or bus blown up.
Yup. Which is why we usually don't sing all the verses....as I was walking that ribbon of highway I saw a sign that said no trespassing but on the other side that sign said nothing that side was made for you and me.
Of course, being farther left on the spectrum that you or I doesn't mean a person isn't patriotic. The notion that "the people who don't agree with us don't really love their country" is, at its root, an anti-democratic notion. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.
Do you think that anything of serious nature and substance that marks an important turning event in the history of your country ought to be ripped from the hands of its creator and given to the masses?
There was an extra verse to the song that wasn't often sung because it was considered 'controversial.'
While I was walking that ribbon of Highway I saw a sign that said "no trespassing" but on the other side, that sign said nothing. Well, that side was made for you and me.
Only the French portion of their operations are bound by French laws. Multinationals can't obey the laws of every country that they exist in simultaneously. That would create contradictions.
I'm not sure I follow. "Even in India people look before crossing the street." This isn't formal logic.
True, there is a binary trend of thinking in some parts of India. Zoroastrianism, which is indigenous to the Middle East/India is essentially binary and dipolar. But your example doesn't demonstrate either binary thinking or formal logic.
Seriously though, you realize that 'messing with the source code' is more likely to entrench power relationships than eliminate them, right?
Even if you allow people to choose their children's birth order, most people want to have a son first, then a daughter. And birth order tends to have a significant effect on people's personalities through life.
but I challenge you and anyone else that feels the need for the myth of free will to provide one piece of objective, observable, and repeatable evidence that free will exists.
Science has already decided what it's answer here will be, considering that only physically measurable things are considered valid evidence. However, such assertions are not predictive, and thus not useful. And the purpose of science is not so much to generate 'truth' as it is to generate predictive value. If a statement can't be used to predict the outcome of an event, then it isn't useful.
Look at it this way. If I propose a theory of climate change that says "There are two essential phases for earth's climate; A phase of change and a phase of relative stability." This is useless. What other phases can their be other than change and stability. A scientific statement is only as valuable as it is predictive.
Game theory can show that games such as the human genetic system, which is self altering, are irreducably complex and non-determinsitic. It's even possible to make simple non-deterministic computer programs. Humans consciousness is a self altering system which responds to its environment, and such systems are almost always non-determinisitic and irreducably complex. In the case of people, they are motivated as well. So the argument that people are 100% deterministic, and it's only our lack of knowledge that prevents us from predicting everything that they do, is false.
While humans are more deterinistic than others at particular times, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to explain things after the fact, but impossible to predict 100% of a person's actions based on biological information (though I'm sure you could make many predictions based on that information.)
The problem is that nobody has a 100% 'free will.' It's constrained by a variety of biological impulses and urges which make us predictable. But not totally so. And we can 'self alter' in such a way which makes rigidly deterministic view of human consciousness less predictive, which I believe is what the previous poster aluded to.
I think this logic is a problem stemming from our western, binary thinking. Either "a" or "not a."
What about this model; Free will is a gradient. It's more difficult to hold your hand on a hot stove than on a cool one. You have less free will in the first scenario. It's harder not to eat the cheetos when you're hungry. You have free will, but less of it because you're acting under a strong compulsion which is designed to manipulte your free will. Such compulsions can be addressed, physically or psychologically (including the threat of punishment).
In regards to the prisoner scenario, punishment is still justified if it prevents the behavior. The problem is that in America, the reform aspect of our criminal justice system is just about gone. It's mostly punative. We don't make criminals productive members of our society. We just try to make sure they don't profit from their crimes.
Science has already decided this. "Free Will" is a philosophical, not scientific, concept.
The scientists are now just setting about to gather evidence. Can you imagine any experiment which would support the existance of what we call 'free will?'
Slashdot Mirror
kinda depends on your definition of 'sci-fi.'
For some people, science fiction is just a plot device for exploring present issues and conditions using science as a metaphore/backdrop, particularly given the intergalactic politics. Consider Lucas's use of machine as people and people as machines.
I suppose the term is too broad for purists given this discussion, but Star Wars is considered by many to be sci-fi. "Space Opera" might be a subgenre, but it doesn't preclude sci-fi ness. Especially since Star Wars involves; mass production of items (post assembly line technology), technological advancements, scientifically based descriptions (condensers, robots, trash compactors, buttons, electronics, etc.)
Albeit, the Jedi mess with the catagorization, since they have a romantic (as opposed to modern) twinge to them, but still....
Mathematics is not a crime.
Maybe not, but it can get you 5 -10
the Higgs Boson.
What does NASA have in the works for discovering life on Titan, anyways? What would he accept as proof.
And what is 'commercial implementation of a gravity wave?'
I'd RTFA but it's been SDed.
The reference was to the radio stations which, oddly enough, spend most of their time promoting major record label. *cough, kickback cough*
Fine, but then communities deserve a much bigger slice of the pie than they're getting to promote this music. Why should the music industry get this resource so cheaply?
It's not stealing if you download music because music isn't protected by property laws. It's protected by copyright laws. Violating copyright laws (i.e. using information without a liscense to it) carries a different set of penalties than theft does.
Physical possessions and the right to liscense information are not treated identically under the law. There's been a huge push in recent years to blur the difference.
Your suggestion is ludicrous in the extreme.
ludicrous or no, this is the law as it's currently written, and as it has been for the past 200 plus years.
I'm not a doctor. I just don't cut people, hurt them, or make them take poison.
I wonder what they look like if you put them in the microwave.
Exactly. Just like the US trying to fight the Vietnam war to a standstill was slow suicide for the vastly more powerful U.S., simply responding to terrorism on a tit-for-tat basis is not going to prevent terrorism. A hardware advantage doesn't matter much if you're sitting around waiting to have a shopping mall or bus blown up.
If he's right, it's not like your comments will be modded up anyways.
Doesn't this make for an ex-post-facto law? And thus unconstitutional?
Yup. Which is why we usually don't sing all the verses. ...as I was walking
that ribbon of highway
I saw a sign that
said no trespassing
but on the other side
that sign said nothing
that side was made for you and me.
Of course, being farther left on the spectrum that you or I doesn't mean a person isn't patriotic. The notion that "the people who don't agree with us don't really love their country" is, at its root, an anti-democratic notion. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.
Do you think that anything of serious nature and substance that marks an important turning event in the history of your country ought to be ripped from the hands of its creator and given to the masses?
Souds good to me.
There was an extra verse to the song that wasn't often sung because it was considered 'controversial.'
While I was walking that ribbon of Highway
I saw a sign that said "no trespassing"
but on the other side, that sign said nothing.
Well, that side was made for you and me.
The candidates made asses out of themselves. Jib Jab just set it to music. ;)
Not to speak up for anyone who burns books, especially Hitler, but the Nazis burned books because they didn't like the authors, not the content.
Only the French portion of their operations are bound by French laws. Multinationals can't obey the laws of every country that they exist in simultaneously. That would create contradictions.
I'm not sure I follow. "Even in India people look before crossing the street." This isn't formal logic.
True, there is a binary trend of thinking in some parts of India. Zoroastrianism, which is indigenous to the Middle East/India is essentially binary and dipolar. But your example doesn't demonstrate either binary thinking or formal logic.
an EMPTY donut truck...
Just put your phone on vibrate.
Imagine a world of humans without gender
I think they're working on that in Japan.
Sounds boring.
Seriously though, you realize that 'messing with the source code' is more likely to entrench power relationships than eliminate them, right?
Even if you allow people to choose their children's birth order, most people want to have a son first, then a daughter. And birth order tends to have a significant effect on people's personalities through life.
... but she's no Laura Croft.
What are those? "A" cups?
but I challenge you and anyone else that feels the need for the myth of free will to provide one piece of objective, observable, and repeatable evidence that free will exists.
Science has already decided what it's answer here will be, considering that only physically measurable things are considered valid evidence. However, such assertions are not predictive, and thus not useful. And the purpose of science is not so much to generate 'truth' as it is to generate predictive value. If a statement can't be used to predict the outcome of an event, then it isn't useful.
Look at it this way. If I propose a theory of climate change that says "There are two essential phases for earth's climate; A phase of change and a phase of relative stability." This is useless. What other phases can their be other than change and stability. A scientific statement is only as valuable as it is predictive.
Game theory can show that games such as the human genetic system, which is self altering, are irreducably complex and non-determinsitic. It's even possible to make simple non-deterministic computer programs. Humans consciousness is a self altering system which responds to its environment, and such systems are almost always non-determinisitic and irreducably complex. In the case of people, they are motivated as well. So the argument that people are 100% deterministic, and it's only our lack of knowledge that prevents us from predicting everything that they do, is false.
While humans are more deterinistic than others at particular times, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to explain things after the fact, but impossible to predict 100% of a person's actions based on biological information (though I'm sure you could make many predictions based on that information.)
The problem is that nobody has a 100% 'free will.' It's constrained by a variety of biological impulses and urges which make us predictable. But not totally so. And we can 'self alter' in such a way which makes rigidly deterministic view of human consciousness less predictive, which I believe is what the previous poster aluded to.
I think this logic is a problem stemming from our western, binary thinking. Either "a" or "not a."
What about this model; Free will is a gradient. It's more difficult to hold your hand on a hot stove than on a cool one. You have less free will in the first scenario. It's harder not to eat the cheetos when you're hungry. You have free will, but less of it because you're acting under a strong compulsion which is designed to manipulte your free will. Such compulsions can be addressed, physically or psychologically (including the threat of punishment).
In regards to the prisoner scenario, punishment is still justified if it prevents the behavior. The problem is that in America, the reform aspect of our criminal justice system is just about gone. It's mostly punative. We don't make criminals productive members of our society. We just try to make sure they don't profit from their crimes.
Science has already decided this. "Free Will" is a philosophical, not scientific, concept.
The scientists are now just setting about to gather evidence. Can you imagine any experiment which would support the existance of what we call 'free will?'