I guess you didn't read with enough attention. Gold has intrinsic value because it does not depend on a system who says "that piece of paper is worth X". It is not the magic material that solves all problems, of course, but losing the conversion to gold is still LOSING no matter how you put it.

In absence of gravity, of course, you take two turtles, put one against the other. They will attract each other. Now put all other turtles on these two. Now it's turtles all the way down. So you typed all this when "turtles all the way down" is a completely acceptable answer to parent post.

A god created god ad infinitum, with optional looping, why not? because doesn't fit our infinitesimal brain? That's not a valid objection. A valid objection is that this requires the concept of creation to be valid in all iteration of such a model. But it's not a definitive objection, from our point of view we are unable to make one.

Compiler error line 1: "what/who", "created", are undefined concepts in the scope you are using them. You don't do that with code, why should you be able to do in philosophical reasonings?

First you define "creation" in the context of the domain of the hypothetical god (hint, you can't tell nothing about ANYTHING in it at all since you cannot experience it and if you could you couldn't prove you did not even to yourself).
Then you define "who" in the context of the domain of the hypothetical god, (hint above applies, plus, no space means "who" can't be identified, that is, told apart the rest).

Religions have it easy. "god told me that... " can mean that a concept, which is potentially incomprehensible in its own domain, gets translated in ours like...
As demigod of a 2d simulation I could say that a cube is like a square. Now it's up to the simulation to believe me or not, truth won't ever be reachable from the inside.

In general, you can't define anything outside your own level of existence and be sure it makes any sense.

Your objection depends on how our concept of creation behaves in our concept of time, makes no sense too.

But, if we abandon all hope to conclude anything strong, let's go one level of recursion deep: imagine a conway's game of life. what's time for one entity inside it? time is the succession of frames. That succession of frame is independent of our time. It does not matter that some time is needed to compute frames, because that's something that is completely irrelevant to the inside of the game.

Now, your question translated one level deeper in the context of conway's game of life is: how many frames it took to create the game itself? You see it doesn't make any sense. Of course in this context you say "but see, time is needed nonetheless". And I reply, yes, it's a feature of the game itself to resemble some of our concepts. It doesn't prove something like that is necessary in the hypothetical domain of a god that transcends time.

Regulations said that the banknote you could exchange back for gold, cannot be anymore. Talk about not getting shafted, intrinsic value vs. depending on a system to tell value from useless paper is a terrible deal.

> It's just evidence that creation isn't needed to work.

Guys, we are discussing an hypothetical guy residing outside of, and creator of, TIME itself.
You, and all the others, make NO SENSE because you imagine creation IN TIME vs. evolution IN TIME, instead of creation OF Time, the universe, with all its peculiarities like emergent life vs. a patch to introduce life (which seems bad programming style itself, and probably not what the genesis and similar books meant, at all).

If you make a tiny effort and watch things from the POV of a hypothetical god who stands beyond the concept of time, there is no problem in creating a universe with free will agents and knowing how it's going to end up, or in creating an evolving universe that ends up exactly the way you do, or in creating a universe whose time extends indefinitely in both directions and so on.

Face it, creation and evolution are orthogonal issues, just as who and why are orthogonal questions. Those who prefer to pit science against religion, just founded the religion of science and I applaud them on their proliferation effort.

Besides, who's more peer with respect to the author than the author itself? I tell you, it can't get more peery than this.

> The idea of patents was to foster innovation.
the idea they used to sell you the idea of patents was to foster innovation. De facto, patents are working as intended. I agree with you nonetheless.

Dang, I must have missed the speech declaring potholes higher in the priorities list than curing cancer.

Yours is not a good example, PRO, performing right organizations, SACEM in france SIAE in Italy, have long had agreements in place to get performing rights from each other's protected works. The law governing those territories is a problem of the resident PRO.

Nice to know that in our beloved EU the top priority for a politician is the harmonization of copyright. It means that all the other pressing problems have been solved.

This. Badly used Javascript, like html frame elements, also break the stateful nature of webpages, and this means breaking the concept of hypertext itself.
If sites were designed with optional javascript and ajax, they would work as well and referring to web content would be much easier. The semantic web was already there.

Of course big sites don't offer you the content as easily. Get logged in, get profiled, don't get out.

They have circumvented a protection measure, that is wiping the phone- a faulty protection measure, but that doesn't matter, as history taught us if you find holes and publicize them, no matter the responsibility of the manufacturer, you are terrorist!

Moreover, it is clear they have an interest in selling their own protection products, and that they have given bad ideas to people who normally would have started using the second hand phone and overwriting the crap with their own crap.

So why doesn't avast end up in trouble like $RANDOM_HACKER ? Huh?

Before MTV, cellphones and in general the sensory overload of contemporary urban life, extroverts could stay with themselves for 15 minutes too.

Introverts are to be considered uncool, not because they are more or less abnormal (the media hype, and therefore sanction, people with degenerate, inane, self-harming behavior: get a teenager's top 20 chart and listen to the lyrics).
They are uncool because they think too much for themselves. The system improperly known as society want people who respond to emotions, not thinkers.

I have a cunning plan, my lord.
  - The guest doesn't get open internet access.
  - The wifi provider opens up a secure tunnel with a server designated, or owned by the guest. The ISP is foiled.
  - The guest connect to it and sets up a secure tunnel itself, through which he accesses the internet. The wifi provider is foiled as it cannot snoop on it and cannot be considered responsible by what the guest does, morally. Legally it's another matter, but then, the law is immoral. Also if the guest misbehaves the investigators will find the server designated/owned by the guest first, which is probably the right place to investigate if you want to find the real source.