They are both, I suppose.

I don't really know what you meant but after considering it I think that an initial condition that required the oversimplification of a problem would be something like this: all actions are either completely egoistic or completely altruistic

I gave them as examples where altruistic and selfish components are muddled, and the interpretation would differ between people.

As I think about it more I think that an egoist would have a clear answer about what to do when faced with such problems. You seem to be saying though that this is the result of an oversimplification such as the initial condition suggested above. What I don't understand is how that is part of the problem in your opinion. When I read what you are saying it seems that you want to argue that problems are not as simple as egoists see them and that you support this by listing problems that you think are more complicated. That you perceive some problems to be more complicated is entailed in your initial stated opinion but it doesn't help me to understand why these problems are more complicated or demonstrate that they really are.

I'm sorry if I am missing something but I don't see a Žižek video anywhere.

I never made any demands on your time. I think that the minimal effort to find out what you think would be to read your justification of your opinions rather than a discourse on sexuality by Foucault. When I want to read Foucault I can go to a library.

I'm sorry if I don't understand but aren't these examples of problems rather than examples of initial conditions that require the oversimplification of problems?

Am I correct to think that you mean to say Ayn Rand has a clear idea of the correct action in such situations? That these problems can not be solved only by considering only whether a suggested solution is selfish or altruistic? If I am correct to say that then does this not beg the question?

I thought it must have been accidental. To say anything about all of human interaction takes much contemplation. To provide a counterexample to claims about all of human interaction often really doesn't take much contemplation.

Can you tell us some examples of initial conditions that require the oversimplification of problems?

If you are speaking in a code it is one that I don't understand. I might read that pdf at some point but I had hoped that you could just offer a quick summary of your opinions.

Do you really think that there is no human interaction such that it is entirely selfish?

That does not appear to offer much detail about what you think. Should I guess that you think some topics lie outwith the bounds of philosophy?

Care to go into some detail about this?

I am happy to say that I work for someone who qualifies as extraordinary according to this criteria. Sadly I also work in an organization with many others who qualify as average.

It renders the quiz an excellent measure of determination.

I had to stop when I saw that awful bar at the foot of the page reload for the third time. It might have been easier if I could develop sidebar blindness to go with my banner blindness.

I will never know but I dare say that I am a bit smarter than whoever designed that ghastly website.

Brainfuck is still alive and well. You might notice that vapor.js has been ported to brainfuck.

Upon seeing semicolon my first thought was that it is a shame that you can't generate semicolon code using brainfuck.

I can only hope that the author's prediction about the end to DRM for ebooks becomes a reality one day. It does seem obvious that a logistics company should not necessary in order to publish books electronically. Although the author is sceptical in the comments I also think that the role of the publisher should diminish greatly in future.

I see what you mean. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is though since both states will exist within the trade regulations of the European Union.

A more likely argument for independence is the different social agenda that the Scottish public appear to have. One example from post devolution Scotland is the provision of university education. English universities charge increasing fees to English students whereas Scottish students are educated for free in Scotland. There are many issues where Scotland wants to deviate from UK law and although it already has many powers to do so there are still powers that it does not have. Aside from a distinct social agenda and culture Scotland also has a distinct geography, population distribution and natural resources. I assume that nationalists have plans about how to provide legislation that is tailored to these differences rather than the whole of the UK.

For some time I have considered the economic arguments for and against independence to be red herring. If there is an argument for independence it is more likely to be a very simple one about autonomy. I don't support independence or argue in favour of it but I can see why some people would like it.

What does it mean to be "England's Canada"?

Two obvious exports are scotch whisky and oil. It is also an energy rich country and thus has potential to export energy in future.

Has anybody ever argued in favour of independence on the basis of changing Scotland's primary trading partner?

Freedom from what?

While reading this I'm reminded of the utterly awful BBC television programme Question Time. The audience have the opportunity to question a panel of politicians, journalists and other public figures. This splendid opportunity is consistently wasted on statements instead. I'd like this article to be made required reading for such audiences in future.

It seems that this really hinges on the meaning of the term 'work'. Ed Bott updated his article to note that the EULA define it thus:

any book or other work you generate using this software

That strikes me as an odd definition but Ed Bott also updates to note that the contents of the work can be extracted as plain text and used elsewhere in other formats. So it looks like it is not as bad as at first glance. Also I didn't notice a justification of Booth's interpretation of 'work'. If I thought I could retain my sanity while agonizing over legalese I would look elsewhere for his justification.

There are still serious problems though. Apple still control any work created that utilizes unique features of the ibooks format. That strikes me as a lot of control to hand over. It is also clear from other articles on this topic that the main victim is the reader rather than the author. In order to use the interactive features of this format a reader must use an ipad. If authors start to design books specifically as an interactive experience then certain works will not be available to readers who either can't afford an ipad or whose conscience wouldn't allow them to use one. I would hope that such interactive features were available on other platforms and formats but never bet on it. After all Apple is the type of company that would happily patent the rectangle if it could.

Thanks for the link ecib.

Any chance of a link to this?