Stack Exchange
log in

Michael Hall

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
2
Michael Hall
yst 23:37
@JoeW, I fully understand what might have happened, but the question didn't say the cop saw the car after it entered the intersection, but that he saw a red light before it entered. I cannot fathom that being simply an honest mistake.
Michael Hall
yst 20:28
@JoeW, then it would be amber, not green. The question specified that the light was green. The car would have to be moving exceptionally slow for the light to change from green to amber to red before they clear the intersection.
Michael Hall
yst 20:28
Like I said, mistaking green for red is pretty darn hard to do... (Send that guy for an eye exam.) If he merely "thought" it was red that should be stated clearly as such in the testimony, and the lack of certainty over color would provide reasonable doubt.
Michael Hall
yst 20:28
"The officer thought the light was red." I think it's a stretch to infer that getting the difference between red and green wrong could be chalked up to a simple mistake. Especially when there is an intermediate amber to warn of the impending change. They need to witness a clear cut violation before making a traffic stop, Cops lie to citizens all the time, but if you lie under oath it's perjury.
 

 Discussion on question by JorensM: Co…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Fri 08:44
@mudskipper, I agree, but you equated the physicality of a brain disease to this question that asks specifically about a "soul" leaving the body. So...
Michael Hall
Fri 08:44
Alzheimer's is a very physical disease of the brain, there is no evidence that it affects the soul.
Michael Hall
Fri 08:44
Without (consciousness, essence, soul, self, etc...) you'd be unlikely to observe behavior. Maybe bodily functions, but to an observer the likely diagnosis would be brain death.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Have …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Thu 15:47
What would Aristotle think about my lucky rabbit's foot?
 

 Discussion on answer by JBentley: Bus…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Michael Hall
Wed 21:38
@JBentley, and a necessary precursor to any lawsuit would first be that the vendor... recognizes their mistake and agrees that money is owed! At which point, presumably, if both parties are acting in good faith, they would settle up before wasting money on lawyers. Agree? Yes, it may be a matter of practicality rather than law to notify them of the mistake, I'm simply saying it is a very necessary step to correct the root problem and avoid legalities and/or further confusion.
Michael Hall
Wed 21:38
@BenVoigt, All I'm saying is that it's a necessary first part of fulfilling any legal requirement to pay them back, for reasons already mentioned...
Michael Hall
Wed 21:38
"I think the emphasis is more on paying the money back rather than informing them. The latter isn't even really necessary as long as you do the former." No, the latter is absolutely necessary. Most computer based accounting systems will not even allow you to make accept payment without a corresponding invoice or sales order to transact against. The company needs to identify and correct the problem first to avoid creating even more confusion.
Michael Hall
Wed 21:38
Spending an hour on the phone informing them of their mistake seems like more than enough effort to me.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Michael Hall
Jul 18 13:48
@JBentley, we both made certain assumptions... Me: that the mentioned private club's purpose was public charity, and you that it was not. Simple misunderstanding I believe, thanks for elaborating.
Michael Hall
Jul 18 01:59
And since we are already arguing: "an organisation which has a purpose of "the advancement of education" will fail to be a charity if educates only one person" Do you have a reference you can cite for this claim? Some organizations sponsor an annual scholarship award, are they not charities?
Michael Hall
Jul 18 01:59
@JBentley, Right, but I never said or even implied that just any private club of friends would meet the definition. As I clearly pointed out, it is the purpose and resulting actions that would qualify a private club as a charity.
Michael Hall
Jul 18 01:59
@JBentley, a group of friends who form a private club to pool their money and make donations towards various causes that benefit others would most definitely meet the definition of a charity. Because why wouldn't they? It's the charitable purpose of the club, not the membership that counts. There are all sorts of private charitable foundations in the US, but maybe the UK is different?
Michael Hall
Jul 18 01:59
@FD_bfa, "I could informally set up a club with a group of friends that could constitute a charity." Yes, of course. Why would it not be? Now if you are asking how to obtain legal tax exempt status or something similar that's a separate question.
 

 Discussion on answer by keshlam: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jul 18 07:44
"who is asserting that life is a category that might repeat, and where and under what conditions?" It is apparent by observation because it does, and does so under the conditions here on earth, so what are you questioning about this premise?
 

 Discussion on question by Cartesian D…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jul 15 10:27
@ScottRowe, Ha! I like the brevity and levity of your explanation best, but thanks to both of you for straightening me out... ;)
Michael Hall
Jul 15 10:27
@KristianBerry. You aren't making sense. If you don't fail at some thing then you succeed, therefore you are claiming that if you don't exist you would both discuss the idea of nonipsism and doubt your existence. Impossible of course, but what am I not seeing in the earlier comment that might help me make sense of your point?
Michael Hall
Jul 15 10:27
Ontologically, there is epistemic access to qualia.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Gudeman…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jul 12 14:14
I would be more inclined to believe we might somehow synthesis life itself, from which consciousness and emotions would come. But there's a deep mystery about life that we are a long way from understanding.
Michael Hall
Jul 12 14:09
@causative, Consider my earlier remark a strong opinion rather than a srong claim... I find such comparisons useful and interesting, but not compelling enough to actually believe we might ever produce robots with genuine human emotions.
Michael Hall
Jul 12 10:31
Fair enough. Either way the best possible outcome is a clever mimic. All you would end up with is an electro-mechanical philosophical zombie - Because how would you ever know otherwise?!
Michael Hall
Jul 12 10:31
"Anyway, the complexity of emotions (or lack thereof) is not the point David was making, nor what the examples were aimed at." I disagree. David's point was that emotions are to complex for us to replicate in machines, and your counter example fell well short of refuting that point. Sure, even a simple AI can "mimic" emotion, but that's the best we could ever hope for.
Michael Hall
Jul 12 10:31
@causative, what strong claim have I made that you are you asking about?
Michael Hall
Jul 12 10:31
@causative, the most complex machine functions imaginable are woefully inadequate in explaining human emotions. It's a false equivalency. It's a timeworn science fiction fantasy to think we can one day build robots with human emotions. I've downvotes the question for that reason.
Michael Hall
Jul 12 10:31
Performing addition as a counter example is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to equating basic machine functions with complex abstract concepts like human emotion.
 

 Discussion between Syed and John Boll…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jul 8 19:49
I was using the comparison of a computer simulation. Like the Sims. I'm pretty sure the human mimicing Sim characters are programmed using standard coding language and don't include actual human DNA.
Michael Hall
Jul 8 19:02
@Syed, if you are writing code for a computer simulator you would not include the DNA of the code writer because they are outside of, and independent from the simulation. So why would you include the inferred complexity of a diety in your analysis?
Michael Hall
Jul 8 18:14
@JohnBollinger, separate everything that does not have an apparent common root cause and consider them to be requiring different explanations. I gave the previous example of this photosynthetic process, which requires a different explanation than how a CO2 molecule was formed. Just because photosynthesis requires a CO2 molecule does not mean their origins have anything in common.
 

 Discussion on question by More Anonym…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jun 28 09:26
@DavidGudeman, I'm not asking for a full tutorial, I will take it seriously, ordinary definitions are easily searchable, (and should be known by those with advanced knowledge...) but we can just stop there if you like. Realize though that to the layperson claims of rocks performing computations without an explanation beyond differing states of the speed and position of the constituent subatomic particles comes across as sheer lunacy. (The leaves of my oak tree flutter in the breeze, does that mean they are performing computations?)
Michael Hall
Jun 28 09:26
@DavidGudeman, an "interesting proposal"? I would suggested that claiming rocks perform computations is the far more interesting proposition! I'm just trying to ground the ensuing discussion in reality... Not sure I can manage your request to redefine "order", but I'd start with the ordinary dictionary definitions of "computation" and "algorithm" and ask you how the "actions" of a rock might be able to be categorized as either or both. (And how you would read the answer as an output of this computation: Keep it simple, e.g. you want the rock in question to sum two plus two...)
Michael Hall
Jun 28 09:26
Right - intention, purpose. A coherent and predictable result. Order instead of chaos. That's what separates actual "computation" from random sub-atomic particle motion within a rock, agree?
Michael Hall
Jun 28 09:26
@DavidGudeman, Ok, so how do you get the answer?
Michael Hall
Jun 28 09:26
Physical rocks don't execute many computations. At least the last time I tried one it didn't work...
 

 Discussion on question by Mike: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
Okay, last question: Is it true that this particular phone was licensed according to the GPL, but that most phones and other consumer electronics containing software are NOT?
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
I always thought commercial source code was closely guarded. (Happy to delete my comments to clean this up...)
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
Now I'm more confused because the answer you reference is in the context of object code already loaded on the device, (i.e. not unavailable...) vs missing source code that you might be required to copy from somewhere and provide separately for a sale to be legal. It's a good answer, just not to the question as it is asked! (unless I'm still missing a major nuance that isn't obvious?...)
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
@jen, I'm all for simple, but this question asked if there was a way to comply with GPL as if the requirement was unclear, (a reasonable question...) while the comment states the actual requirement. Most questions are answered by citing the actual legal requirement, which in this case is apparently supplying source code. At some point Captain Obvious becomes relevant...
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
OK, fair enough I guess, but what is the missing nuance? In other words, you are telling us that you are required by the GPL to provide source code with the sale of the item, and then asking if you can comply without providing said source code. Haven't you just answered the question for yourself?!
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
Jen addressed part of my critique, but you also ask "Is there a way to transfer ownership of this phone in a way that complies with the GPL?" which seems to ask whether a seller has compliance obligations WRT future use by the buyer on a network. Is that what you are asking? (Consider the example of a car, a buyer could simply park it in their collection, but if they want to drive it on public roads they have to register it in their name. It's generally not the seller's responsibility to register a car to the new owner)
Michael Hall
Jun 24 17:41
The title question doesn't really match the rest of the question.
 

 Discussion between shindemo and Micha…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:24
Or on drugs...
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:23
Yeah, I think you are a troll. See ya.
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:23
Not sure what you mean...
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:22
What do you mean asking if I'm disassociative?
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:22
If she has mental health trauma and you are desiring to stay with her you have an uphill battle ahead of you. I am not a therapist, and would suggest you seek professional help if you are determined to forge ahead. That said, I'm happy to chat and offer perspective if you find it useful.
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:19
It doesn't belong on meta either. Invite me to a chat if you want to talk about it...
Michael Hall
Jun 21 19:19
I doubt that. In any case, that doesn't make it on-topic.