Replace car franchise with YouTube and and factories with content creators. Now imaging that Google wants to push laws so that content creators cannot build their own video sites but instead must be licensed to sites like youtube for the simple reason that youtube was a huge and risky investment. If it sounds ridiculous for Google to do the same thing that dealers did why should the dealers be able to do it?
Not the same thing. The product is not the videos, it's the ads. A more appropriate analogy would be Google selling other video sites access to the ad serving technology, then when that site becomes popular, creating special youtube sub-site that serves identical videos, and telling ad purchasers they can buy ads on the new youtube sub-site for $X or on the other site for $y where $x < $y.
The analogy breaks down here, because IP, licensing and so on interfere with direct analogy.
>>Any data on this, all data suggests that were there are more guns there are more deaths, apparently evil interferes can buy guns too.
Le me give you a different perspective on the matter. Free Speech means that you can be critical of the government. It also means that you can spout hatred against something you dislike .
I believe most people agree that criticizing your government is what free speech was meant for and not for attacking some harmless group. But to control one kind of speech is to control the other which is why it is not done. In essence, you cannot have it both ways. It is a necessary evil.
According to a new interpretation of the Mayan calendars today is just the beginning of a new era. I'd say hitting a billion YouTube views today could count as a new era for the world. One where a billion views is possible, ergo the Mayans were right.
That's not a new interpretation. It just hasn't got the same airtime because it's not as interesting. I heard this interpretation from a Mexican/Mayan 5 years ago. It's happened before in the Mayan calendar too. It just restarts again if I remember correctly.
True if everybody has access to strong AI. I doubt that is the way it will play out. At least at the beginning. Whomever invents it first will probably hoard it for themselves as an advantage against everybody else. The technology will eventually spread to everybody else but by that time our economy will probably have adapted.
>>I don't think it's as much of a dealbreaker as some people
It is the one big thing that makes me hesitate about buying an rMBP. SSD's are prone to failure according to many articles I've read and they also have a limited life span even if it doesn't have any defects. Once the thing gives up there is no way to easily swap it out and just insert a new one.
Also, sometimes I need to swap out hard drives (or SSD drives in this case). With the rMBP that is not possible. The rMBP is a nice computer but I really hope they see the error in their ways and add a replaceable standard SATA SSD.
I think another term that is appropriate is "Survivorship bias". That is, you always hear about the success stories, but you never hear about the failures, so you think that the chance of success is higher than it really is.
The "why" in the framework of special relativity would be "because the Lorentz transformations rotate points in four-dimensional spacetime."
If you imagine every event as having (x,y,z,t) coordinates in a particular reference frame, the Lorentz transformation is a 4x4 matrix which rotates events to show what would be observed in another reference frame. You trade spatial distance for temporal distance and vice versa.
This comes out of the structure of spacetime, rather than viscosity of some kind, which would be visible as a force.
Edit: Let me see if I can make myself clear. We know that c is constant no matter how fast you are moving. If c is constant then it can be derived that time slows down and distances get compressed, etc. etc. etc. Einstein derived all of this by realizing that c is constant in all frames of reference. Now, if I ask "Why does time slow down?" and I get the answer "because c is constant" then we are just going in circles. It seems that that is what is happening here. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you not using a derivation of the fact that c is constant as an answer? I'm looking for a more fundamental reason as to why time slows down. Which is the same as asking why c is constant.