For all we know, the collapse of every waveform is a violation of what we call causality. When an electron is in a superposition of spin up and spin down states, then measurement, then collapse to a spin up state, what caused the spin up state? When?

When we can't say what or when caused the spin up state, how do we know whether "causality" was "violated?" The Bell inequalities ruled out local hidden variables, but not non-local (and perhaps therefore non-causal) ones, so saying "it's probabilistic!" is just hand waving. Yes, it's just probabilistic...without non-local hidden variables.

This is the premise of the Transactional Interpretation of QM.

Just saying, "no FTL because causality" isn't certain, because causality isn't a given when we don't know what (or when) "caused" a wavefunction to collapse the way it did.

Do I think that means warp drives and Buck Rogers? No, but any argument that relies on causality is begging the question.

Not exactly. You could have FTL communication, but then you wouldn't have causality.

And causality is a little loosely defined when we're still puzzled by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

In the macro world, block moves. What caused it? Other block hit it, and impact must precede motion. Causality.

In QM...electron is in a superposition of spin up and spin down states. Measurement takes place, and we find the electron is spin up. What caused it to be spin up instead of spin down? When we can't say, how can we say when the cause of the spin up state occurred?

The Bell inequalities ruled out local hidden variables, but not nonlocal ones, and locality and causality are tightly intertwined.

This is the premise of the Transactional Interpretation of QM.

Just saying, "no FTL because causality" isn't certain, because causality isn't a given when we don't know what (or when) "caused" a wavefunction to collapse the way it did. You're basically begging the question that our universe is causal.

Also, if you can move the asteroids...what exactly do you need from earth? The elements are pretty much the same. Compounds and concentrations of course are different. On earth we wind up with veins of copper or iron because water, plate tectonics and lifeforms tend to sort them together in geological timescales. But they'd be much more evenly spread out on an asteroid or Mars. But the elements are still there. You can move between star systems but you can't pulverize an asteroid and sift through the iron ore? Gotta come down to earth with a pick and a shovel?

I guess it could be "goldilocks zone" planets are rare enough to fight over.

Or it could just be because the aliens are dicks.

I love noscript, but it's practically impossible for a non-techy to use. It's second nature to me, but very obvious when my wife tries to look something up on one of my computers. "Oh right, I forgot, yeah, you'll need to decipher and selectively enable 8 different domains to view that recipe for chocolate cookies."

Knights carry more armor than swords...

I bet there's a prostate cancer counter on tumblr. Every time it ticks up they hold a .gif party. One fewer male oppressor.

Troll harder.

It isn't so much "freeloaders" I worry about with regards to permissive licenses. It's the "embrace, extend, extinguish" model. It's what Google will eventually do with Android. Start all "look at us being all Open Source!" And then they get a big head start using OS libraries and contributions from a community, but once they have enough market share (which they do) slowly start closing it off from the top down. They can't close the kernel (which is the whole point of the GPL and why permissive licenses are a trap), but they can close everything else, one module at a time. Ten years later it's just a closed product running on an OS kernel (which they don't mind as others are doing the bulk of the work on that and doing a great job).

It's like the dark side of the force. "The Jedi? They want power, too, they just want to keep you from using power in ways they don't like..." and it all sounds good until you're slaughtering younglings and shit.

That's where you misunderstand Stallman's philosophy. Modify "in any way" is not necessarily good, and can be used for evil. He wants software that is modified only in ways that require others to be able to modify your modifications. That's the whole point of the GPL, copyleft system. "You can have this software, but when you distribute it in binary form you must provide the source code for it and any derivative works." If he was fine with "in any way" he'd have written the BSD license, where you can do anything you want with the source code from a project except prevent others from using it. BSD users then just hope those who modify their software will contribute back out of the goodness of their hearts, but they could just take it, close it up, give the original devs the bird, and go right on doing what they want.

They mostly don't. And it's easier to get your boss to let you use a BSD project as the basis for your new product because they won't be forced to release their source. And then once the boss sees down the road that it won't hurt their offerings to give back, it'll come around. But sign on to the GPL and there's no changing your mind. It's "viral."

The problem with BSD type licenses is that once you get big enough, and get everybody hooked on your ecosystem, it's much easier to give everybody the bird. That was the issue with GCC. Apple and pals wanted to build closed or less-(Stallmanesque)-free* tools on top of GCC..."oh but we'll also totally contribute to GCC!" Well, sure, but as you build more and more stuff it's going to overwhelm and drown GCC until GCC no longer really exists as a free compiler, but as a happy little open thing supporting a mass of closed-off tools under Apple's control.

This is kind of what Apple did with OS X, which they forked off BSD. At first they made huge contributions to BSD. And using OS X was really a lot like using an open source OS, except for Apple's proprietary stuff on top. You don't except them to open up Safari, or Mail or something. But as more and more pieces are built on top of the OS, they are closed, to the point that now, yes, OS X is "based on BSD" and they contribute to the kernel itself, but the vast bulk of what makes up OS X is closed and proprietary.

The same thing is happening with Google and Android. Aw man, this is great! The Linux kernel is running on like 85% of smartphones and Google is totally contributing stuff back to Linux!** But, only the kernel parts themselves are GPLed. The farther you get up the stack, the more closed it is, and the closure is creeping down. Obviously their apps on top are closed (GMail, Google Play. Chrome is mostly OS released under the Chromium project and based on WebKit). But they're sure not going to be putting out more open top-shelf apps. The libraries were BSD (or similarly) licensed and they've been moving towards more controllable licenses in general, and they can close off whatever they do at any time. Remember, with BSD, there's no requirement to publish your changes. Tomorrow they could say "pfft, closed!" and never release another bit of source for one of the libraries (many contributions to which came from others) and there's no recourse. They just released a new runtime (ART? I think?) I don't know how open that is, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn it's closed.

The MO is basically "embrace, extend, extinguish." A big company takes an open source project, uses it as a launching point to get way ahead in development, and then as they gain market share and people become dependent upon their ecosystem, slowly close it off, replace more and more open source parts of the system with closed parts, until basically it's all closed and under their direction.

Stallman doesn't want to see that happen, and he's not wrong. People whine that "Ugh, Stallman, if you weren't so hard headed we could totally have had Apple's help with GCC!!" Sure. For now. But Stallman's playing the long game. The cost is too high. Candy today, chains tomorrow.

This is the difference between Open Source (a design methodology) and Free Software (a social movement). Yes, the GCC open source project would be a more functional and higher-performing piece of technology with Apple's contributions. But it would be less Free, so, no, fuck it. Principles first. Greenpeace isn't interested in collaborating with Japanese whalers on more efficient engine designs, either.

* BSD adherents take issue with Stallman's use of the word "free," as they believe software that you can do whatever you want with, even if it means making it less free later, is more "free," as it comes with fewer restrictions. To me, I think of "free" as a verb, rather than an adjective. Stallman, FSF type of "freedom" is about liberating themselves and others from restrictions, now and in the future. BSD "free" is an adjective, meaning "permissive." You're permitted to do whatever you want, including remove liberty later.

** Kind of. Google's Android kernel code is totally open. But it's only very slowly and awkwardly being integrated with the main kernel tree because it's not particularly applicable to the general use cases of the kernel. There's a roadmap for integration, but it's slow and there's politics involved because kernel devs didn't think Google would actually maintain their code. So it's kind of like "hey, here's this new stuff for kernel 3.10, enjoy!" and then never update it again, and when it needs an overhaul for 4.x they're nowhere to be found, and the current maintainers are left updating code that only really benefited Google anyway. But Google's hired people to address that, so things are proceeding.

"Begging the question" really means "assuming an answer to a question that was never asked." You're begging the audience to just grant you validation on arguments that support your main argument, without proof or debate.

Wrong usage: "Prison populations are disproportionately black. This begs the question, 'is the justice system racist?'"

It does not beg that question. It raises that question. We don't know the answer to the question (well, we do, but pretend this is the first time somebody noticed that, and now the question has been raised, and so they're going to go answer it).

Right usage: "The solution to violent crime is simple: lock up more black people."

That's an invalid argument that begs the question. You've just begged (acceptance without proof of your implied answers to) the questions "are black people violent criminals?" and "will locking them up reduce violent crime?" Those questions were never raised, you've presented no proof or valid arguments, you've just assumed the answers are "yes" and the audience will either naturally agree or not notice your error in logic. You're just begging the listener to NOT raise those questions, to NOT require you to provide supporting evidence for your answers, and just give you that part of the debate for free.

Whining about it, I agree, is pointless. I like the GP's advice: just don't use it. The meaning of the phrase has been lost, but using it in the colloquial manner is just ceding to ignorance. I'm not going to go be a bitch about other people doing it, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Absolutely. I should have voted for the libertarian gubernatorial candidate who wanted my state to issue its own currency backed by gold.

So, great, my options are evil, evil, or loony.

I used to think that way, but then I saw PRISM. That's not incompetence. That's exceedingly, exceedingly competent. Which leaves...

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

[citation needed]

Every handset maker releases their own custom versions of Android. And then they never want to support their old hardware because fuck you buy a new phone that's why. Which is the reason I only buy Nexus devices.

The OS is still open source. The kernel is GPL and the libraries and many frameworks are either BSD or some other Apache-like license. Some of the applications they put on top of the OS, like Google Play, GMail, etc, are closed. Even Chrome is mostly open, released as the Chromium project. And it's based on WebKit, anyway.

Basically, though, everything that isn't particularly tied into the google ecosystem is open. There's really nothing stopping Yandex or anyone else from making an Android version tailored to their needs. They could fork Replicant, maybe.

Microsoft was forcibly bundling IE with Windows. You couldn't have Windows without IE. But you can absolutely have Android without Google Play. It's one thing to say "Microsoft make it so you can have Windows without IE." It's something else entirely to say "Microsoft keep doing all the work on IE, but let us slap our name on it and point it at our services."