Well, if Dia is fine functionality-wise, but the art assets are not good enough, when you look at the involved budget for a big city ($1.8 million in that example), paying a graphical design studio or a couple of freelancer to make more adequate art asset wouldn't cost as much as the MS licenses.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
In the realm of ethics, three main schools are contesting : virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism.
Virtue ethics say that being ethical is showing a certain number of virtues, and lacking a certain number of vices. Honesty is a virtue, dishonesty a vice.
Deontology ethics say that being ethical is following a certain number of rules (self-imposed or not), and usually deontology ethics contain rules against lying, too.
Consequentialism ethics say they being ethical is judging acts for the consequences it has on people. For consequentialist, lying (or stealing, or killing) aren't bad in thesmselves, but only because they have bad consequences (ie, they hurt people). For a consequentialist, stealing something that would be wasted. For example, after a natural disaster, a supermarket is wrecked and has no staff anymore, and food products are getting rotten, there is no harm done in taking them, so it's ethical to do so.
If you look at that setup, well, what harm is done by lying? Not much, so while virtue ethics and deontology would still prevent people from lying, consequentialism doesn't. Maybe the answer is just that people growing in DDR, less exposed to religion, are more consequentialist ? Which doesn't make them less ethical, none of the three system is clearly the "best", it's a highly contested topic (I tend to lean towards consequentialism myself, but don't completly reject the other two).
And on this, I'm definitely a consequentialist. Being a role-player, "lying about a die roll" has no strict ethical value to me: if I'm a player, it's unethical, but if I'm the DM, it's just part of the job !
So, a handful of people (the recent "protests" were in the number of hundreds, maybe a few thousands at most, nothing of a big and massive popular protest, as Venezuela had in the past, with both opposition and chavistas massing hundred of thousands, even millions) violently protest, attack public infrastructure (city halls, metro stations, hospitals,
Then, the opposition start a massive media manipulation, with photos and videos of repression taken from all around the world (Chile, Spain, Greece,
And now, some governmental Internet links have problem functioning. It must be Maduro doing censorship ! From France, I've troubles reaching many Venezuela government sites, like VTV (state TV) website, or CanTV (public operator) website. Why would Maduro censor his own sites ? Especially VTV ! And why would he cut CanTV, while it's just one operator among many, especially on mobile Internet (and most people in Venezuela, especially among the opposition, have a cell phone) ? It just doesn't make sense.
Couldn't it be that the violent protests damaged the infrastructure ? Couldn't it be that the Venezuela opposition, which is _very_ rich (they have the 1% among them, and they get massive funding from the US), is doing some DDoS or similar attack on CanTV ? Couldn't it be a sabotage, from opposition workers inside CanTV, or from abroad ? I should remind you that during the 2003 oil "strike" in Venezuela, the US corporation that handled the computer systems of PDVSA (state oil company in Venezuela) sabotaged them, just to add to the chaos and create the conditions for a military coup.
Given all this past and all those facts, shouldn't we wait until the exact reasons of the (very partial) shutdown of CanTV services are known before yelling "censorship" or "dictatorship" ? Because that's exactly what the Venezuelan extreme-right wants us to do, and it's not the first time they would manipulate media and perform false flag attacks to do it (remember the events of 2002, where the opposition killed people, blamed Chávez to justify a coup).
First, it is not "massive protests", it's the typical (for Venezuela since 1999) protest of the wealthy minority opposing the Bolivarian Revolution, despite dozens of electoral victories of PSUV and allies (ratified by various international observers). And it is violent protests, like when Capriles contested the elections of Maduro, in both cases there has been PSUV supporters _killed_ by the opposition. The opposition also assaulted public building, like Chacao municipality or Caracas metro system (this time), or schools and hospitals (when Maduro was elected).
On the broader picture, the opposition isn't at its first violent attempt to oppose the democratically elected government. For those who don't remember it, in 2002, the same opposition did a military coup attempt, in which Pedro Carmona (the leader of business federation) briefly took power, suspended the Constitution and constitutional guarantees, dissolved the Parliament and the Supreme Court, imposed martial law, closed the public TV station and many independent local TV channels (like Catia TV). Capriles, the current leader of the opposition in Venezuela, was personally involved in supporting the coup, including in a violent assault against the Cuban embassy in Caracas.
Those protests aren't done by "students", they are done by a rich elite refusing to lose their privilege, and not stopping at any means (including violence, murder, and military coups) to undermine a legitmately elected and always re-elected government. They are fascists, as shown by how they behaved (suspending all constitutional guarantees and dissolving all democratic institutions) when they briefly took power in 2002.
As for the media, before listening to all the lies about "censorship", you should remember that the media in 2002 actively participated in the coup attempt, manipulating footage to pretend that Chávez supporters opened fire on the opposition, while in reality it was sharpshooters from the opposition killing Chávez supporters from the roof of on hotel. There is a very good documentary on that topic, "The Revolution will not be televised", that was made by Irish filmmakers who happened to be in Caracas during the events. I advise strongly everyone to watch this documentary before supporting the "opposition" in Venezuela and criticizing the attitude of the Venezuelan government towards the media. In most countries of the world, including Europe or USA, if media did half of what they did in Venezuela, there would have been prison sentences.
Finally, for the Twitter "censorship", the PSUV Twitter account was hacked recently, and Twitter is not cooperating the Venezuelan government to help them track the authors of that infraction. While no one knows (yet) all the details of what is going on between the Venezuelan government and Twitter, it's way too early to call about "censorship" in that context, it may very well be just a way for the Venezuelan government to pressure Twitter to cooperate in tracking the authors of a penal infraction.
1. Foundation - Isaac Asimov (well, the whole Foundation cycle) - the best scifi cycle of all times (that is a purely objective statement, right ?)
2. Gödel, Escher, Bach : an Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter - clever, insightful and amazing book on AI, nature of consciousness, mathematical structures and art
3. Dune - Frank Herbet - another breathtaking scifi cycle
4. A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking - nice introduction to how the universe work.
5. Ringworld - Larry Niven - some glimpse at our possible future : massive scale engineering
6. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins - nice introduction to genetics and how selfishness at gene level can lead to altruism at people's level
7. Permutation City - Greg Egan - another glimpse at another possible future : mind upload
8. The End of Time - Julian Barbour - controversial, radical but interesting proposal : and if time itself was just an illusion ?
9. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality - Eliezer Yudkowsky - hilarious and enlightening fanfiction about "what if Harry was a math/science genius when he entered Hogwarts"
10. Modern Operating Systems - Andrew Tanenbaum - to understand how your computer really works
(Note : I could have added some political books, but not wanting to start a flamewar I didn't)
You can't "send states" either. You measure on your own photon (or electron, or whatever) and if you find a value. The other guy measure his own photon (or whatever) and find a value. The two values, once you communicate with each other (slower than light) will always match (be the same, or be opposite, depending of the way you entangled them). But you don't send the value of your measurement, and you don't even send the fact you did a measurement.
It has uses, for example in cryptography. Or if you want to run a solar system wide lottery and have the people on Mars and Earth follow, exactly at the same time (warning: that's layman speach, it doesn't have any real meaning in GR), the outcome of the lottery, and no one having the result before the other. But not for communication.
RIP Neil Armstrong. You'll forever rest among the heroes of humanity, alongside with Gagarin, Newton and Einstein.
All around the world, regardless of politics, religion and nationality, you inspired people and opened the future. You were the first human to ever walk another world. To cross the immensity of the hostile void, and to actually walk on the moon. You made us all make that giant leap. You changed forever the way we think, at night, when we looked at that silvery crescent up there.
I wasn't born when you did it, and yet, you still inspired me to love science and dream of a better future. Future generations won't forget you. The best tribute we can make to you is continuing what you started. More than ever, we should continue the space program. Unite humanity together to send people on Mars and beyond. That would be the best way to honour you, Neil Armstrong, hero of humanity.
At that age, I loved the Philippe Ebly novels, but I don't if they are translated to English (he's belgian, writing in French). But I'm pretty that those are the ones that made love scifi and fantasy so much.
Asimov is my favourite writer, but 8yo is probably too young for Asimov, I think I started enjoying Asimov around 12.
Jules Verne is also quite good, but I'm not sure how old I was when reading them, maybe a bit older like 10.
There are many issues involved, making the whole claim totally, well, wrong.
The first problem is that science can't fix **goals**. Einstein explained it well in http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism but it's a much more general point admitted by most serious rationalists : science (or more exactly rationality, from which science is a subset) is the most powerful tool to understand the world, and to change it to match your goals. But science can't fix goals. It can enable you to maximize your utility function, but it can't fix your utility function. And people will disagree on goals. That's the main reason for which elections and democracy are the best (or at least, "less worse") system, for it allows people to fix the goals together. Imperfectly, but since there is no objective set of goals, no ultimate utility function, only asking to everyone what they want can solve disputes between goals.
The second problem is that science requires the ability to perform repeatable measurements. Large-scale social sciences (like macroeconomics) are therefore not really sciences. You can't perform repeatable experiments and measurements in macroeconomics, with changing one factor and letting the others stay the same. While you can measure the speed of light, or the amount of energy liberated by fusion between two given isotopes of hydrogen, you can't measure how much a tax cut or welfare policy will affect the economy as a whole. You can't make an experiment for that and have 5 other labs around the planet to repeat it in the same conditions. Same when you test a drug on humans, you'll test it on hundred or thousands of cases, comparing it with a placebo. You can't have the same level of confidence in large-scale social science (such as macroeconomics) than you can in physics or biology. You can use rationalism over the evidence we have favoring one or the other systems, but that will still be much more disputed than a claim of "science", and you'll find economists defending and opposing every proposed policy, in a way you'll never see in physics.
The third problem is that science is definitely not conservative. Associating science with conservatism is completely misunderstanding what science is about. Science is completely revolutionizing itself. Relativity and QM are the most known revolutions, but science is directly bound to the idea of **progress**, science is a process of always getting closer to the truth - making your map of reality always closer to what reality really is. Science is definitely not something static, with final answers that will never be changed. That's one of the most fundamental differences between science and religion. Conservatism is resistance to changes. Science is embracing change, realizing you were wrong and fixing it.
That said, yes, we would gain to use more rationalist (or scientific, if you prefer) approach to many topics in politics. And more trust from politicians towards scientists.
And that, I'm pretty sure, would not favor "conservative" policies. It would favor gay rights and abortion. It would oppose death penalty or gun ownership. And it would oppose the current economical orthodoxy, which just, well, fails, from Argentina to Greece to USA. Just for USA, it was much faring better off in the 60s and 70s when it add very high income taxes on the richest, and regulations like Glass-Steagall act, than nowadays after the Reagan/Bush cuts and Clinton liberalism. That part is very well open to debate, but the 3 first reasons for which those claims are just, well, *false*, are much less debatable.
Actually, you *can* make bell's theorem, realism, locality, causality, special relativity and quantum mechanics work well together : that's what the Many Worlds hypothesis does. It's not proven as a theory like QM, SR or GR, but it does create a framework in which, well, everything (from QM to SR) just add up to normality in a clean and compatible way - you just have to discard one thing : the fact that there is only one copy of the universe.
It doesn't solve the quantum gravity problem, but it doesn't make solving it any harder.
No. GPL is only defending freedom. What the GPL is doing is "you're free to do anything with the code, as long as you don't take that freedom over from others". That's the definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do anything, or kidnapping someone would be a freedom. The scale of offense is different, and that's what the scale of punishment for breaking the rule is different (jail if you kidnap someone, only losing the rights to use the software if you violate the GPL), but in both cases it's the same ethical stance : ability to deny to someone the freedom you were granted is not freedom, but power.
And the GPL doesn't prevent making money from the code. Unlike the article says, "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" is false. GPLv3 perfectly allows making money from the code. Even RMS started by selling copies of the GPLed GNU Emacs. What it doesn't allow (like the GPLv2, but with additional protections for new ways of depriving users from their freedom) is only taking freedom away from the users.
As for corporations go, they tend to *prefer* GPL than BSD, because with GPL they are likely to get something back (patches,
It's not "providing internet access to anyone". That would just require the US to lift the blockade. It's "providing internet access to those who oppose the government". Which is indeed corruption : you oppose the government, you receive goods that other people can't buy (because of the blockade).
"They could take over Cuba in a weekend if they wanted to." Like they could in Vietnam ? The USA knows that they can't win a war against Cuba, without having to slaughter most of the cubans. They can't afford it, especially when there is no oil in Cuba to justify it in front of corporate USA.
"The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA." No, it was performed by mercenaries. And it had cover by USA frigates and airforce, if that's not military intervention.
"This is very different from the Cuban invasion of Angola." Cuba didn't invade Angola. Cuba sided with one side of the two belligerents in a civil war in Angola, only because the other side was supported by Apartheid South Africa imperialist forces. The defeat of South Africa in invading Angola, thanks to Cuban effort, was recognized by Nelson Mandela as a major step in the fall of Apartheid.
"The fact is that the Cuban dictatorship uses the USA as a convenient excuse for keeping their country under their military rule." If that was really the case, why wouldn't the USA just stop the blockade ?
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most widely misunderstood expression, used a few times by Marx (and it was a very clumsy wording from him, indeed). What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society. He didn't mean by it a Stalin-like totalitarian state. He was even clear that for him, "dictatorship of the proletariat", was something like Paris' Commune. Which was the most democratic form of government that existed in modern history in France. In which elected representative could be recalled at any time at the demand of the basis. Which abolished death penalty, and gave right to vote to women, as early as 1870. Even the "army" of the Commune (the National Guard) was democratic, with the officers elected by the guards.
As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.
If you compare Cuba to its neighbors, it has much less human rights violations than for example in Mexico, Peru, Colombia or Chile (which are US allies and recognized as "democracies"). And it has several very positive aspects. One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).
Cuba isn't perfect, and we should criticize what is broken in the cuban system. But Cuba is not a "tropical gulag", it's not the hell of a country that the mass media tell us it is. Considering its history and the hostility of a nearby superpower, it's quite impressive they managed to get all the good things they have, without much more bad things. Especially when you compare with so many other countries of Latin America.
"Quasi-gulag ?" I went to Cuba. I spoke to cuban. I saw how they live. Not in luxury and there are problems, yes. But it's definitely not a "quasi-gulag". The only "gulag" in Cuba is Guantanamo.
"No one should be punished for an unjust law." Indeed. But a law saying an agent from a foreign hostile power can't come to your country to stir unrest, build a covert communication network, and corrupt people to oppose the government, well, it's not that an "unjust" law, and similar laws exist everywhere in the world.
"I'm sure the people in Cuba's prisons who are there for the horrible crime of criticizing the government would agree with that." No one is. There are people in Cuba's prisons for the horrible crime of receiving money or goods from a foreign hostile power to undermine the government. That's completely different. Now we can argue about the fairness of the trial, and some may be innocent of the crime they are accused of. Like there are people innocent in jail in every country. We should criticize it every time we have data on such a case, and we can criticize specific methods used in the court process. There is a lot to criticize on that topic in Cuba. But also in USA, and also in the European Union.