the theory of evolution by natural selection has been refined and added to as more data was available, for example genetic studies, fossil records etc. as to whether creationists would try to use these documents to support their denialism, I have no doubt they will. In fact, in my experience, they are far more interested in quote mining/splicing sentences together that have absolutely nothing to do with one another to attempt to support their claims about prominent members/icons of the scientific community.
Whenever a Democrat tells me we need to raise taxes -- in whatever code words they are using at the time, be it increasing business taxes or "rolling back the Bush tax cuts" -- I love pointing out where all the money is currently wasted. (Almost everywhere it's spent.)
and whenever a republican tells me that they're going to roll out new tax cuts, I point out the national debt and complete lack of funding for anything useful. republicans don't spend any less than democrats do on pork, they merely cut anything useful to pay for their pork.
'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.'
he seems to be operating under the assumption that Windows *is* the desktop. Even in that case, he is disasterously wrong. Linux isn't out to destroy Windows as in the words of Linus himself: "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."
it's easier to claim thousands of miles per gallon on such small vehicles than it is for a typical car.
"we got 3,000 miles per gallon!" sounds far more impressive than "we got 100 miles per gallon" even though 100 mpg is amazing in of its self they are looking for overkill.
an easier way to counter this Microsoft OOXML standard is to urge respective governments to avoid it
this nonsense should have been stopped at the vote, the fact we even need to convince governments that this "standard" is nothing of the sort is troubling. Not the least of which because the same corruption likely exists in goverments themselves.
" Brain Study Calls Free Will Into Question"
what utter nonsense. The ability to predict an action by looking at what your brain is doing has nothing to do with whether or not free will exists. From TFA:
In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration.
sounds to me that the decision making is started before people think it is, nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, on/. there's the normal "I have the physical copy, I can do whatever I want with it" mentality.
not just here but apparently in the courts as well. they mailed these cds out to people as gifts and then try to claim otherwise.
But what if Universal had signed a contract with each and every DJ and reviewer that got a promo copy that said "in exchange for getting this CD a week early, you have to keep it secret." Would people still be in favor of the rule that the person with their hands on the physical copy gets to do whatever they want with it?
except that they did nothing of the sort. you're trying to shift the argument to one that is completely irrelevant in this case. an existing legal contract that is binding is not the same as mailing our media that is intended as advertising verging on SPAM.
anything large enough to clear its immediate orbit and roughly sperical- quite arbitrary as Earth anda few other "planets" havent quite cleared their orbits either.
oh the irony of a hebrew research center practicing eugenics.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.. Finding a correlation between a gene's length and biochemical changes which can result in altered behavior isn't the same as "practicing eugenics" any more than determining the gene responsible for phenylketonuria as an example.
First, you're thinking exactly like the Chinese government and that is rather disturbing. Second, it doesn't really matter what people try to edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to check facts not just blindly obey Wikipedia or SLashdot for that matter.
Third, even if they did vandalize these pages it is quite likely that someone somewhere is going to notice and revert the page back.
I'd suggest Crossover or WINE. which reminds me, why can't Windows run Compiz or Konqueror or any of the other programs available for years on *nix systems?
What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?
talk to the gaming companies, only very recently did they bother issuing patches or creating ports for Mac let alone anything else. Right now most new games are coded specifically for Windows making use of APIs that are either not documented at all or documented very poorly making porting these games difficult or even impossible by third parties.
I always thought that you'd need to show that your trademarked image was reasonably similar which this is nothing of the sort. *or* that one could reasonably associate one brand with another effectively allowing the infringing brand to piggy back on the infringed trademark's notoriety. this isn't the case here either, no one's stupid enough to confuse greeNYC with Macs or any of Apple's products.
I agree with you, "easy to use" is relative. Grandma's idea of "easy to use" isn't necessarily the same as any of ours. she may only need to browse the internet or play simple games, we O.T.O.H may require Bash to be handy for shell scripts to automate different tasks, to refine things etc. Then if you're reasonably familar with *nix commands it's much simpler to communicate fixes for problems, installing software etc. a single command rather than click* click* click** click more....
To claim that the lecture is a creative work they're going to have to show evidence of this. Being a biochem major, the vast majority of the lectures I go to on a daily basis are little more than a list of facts.
By your argument, are all non-fictional works lists of facts that can't be copyright protected?
If they are indeed no more than a list of facts then they shouldn't be copyrightable period. I do think that the presentation of facts in a creative way is most likely patentable but facts themselves are not.
If I remember correctly, facts can not be copyrighted. Copyright implies that there is some creative work being done that should be compensated.
Just as a list of telephone numbers can not be copyrighted, so shouldn't a list of facts.
What would an automaker think of something like that? They would probably rejoice and drop their pricing to pennies on the dollar.
you're joking right? If automakers could make a car for less than 20$ do you really think they would be selling them at anywhere near that price? more likely the industry would move toward a business model like what Microsoft uses. They're not "selling" anything, they're "licensing" the Ford name and design for example.
The four biggest problems with OOXML are: 1) it can only be fully implimented by MS which by definition excludes it as a standard. 2) the fact that MS's promise not to sue puts restrictions on software that can not exist in FOSS projects. 3) it is poorly documented and what has been documented has significant technical flaws. 4) proprietary standards are much more difficult to use as archives because the specifications are not fully known, they must be reverse engineered if older documents are to be used on different platforms. governments using OOXML can not guarantee that these records can be recovered at a much later date because of this... completely open standards however can ensure that data can be recovered indefinitely as all can implement the standard.
I've never had a class that actually used the system. At best, they would put a syllabus on the website. MAYBE they would even put a grade or two. And the classes that I had that put grades up, it would be like the first homework grade and nothing else.
My uni *loves* to use Blackboard and by use I mean the syllabus and occasional grades. It doesn't even do that simple job very well either... certainly nothing that merits anything other than HTML + javascript at most. What do they use? JAVA. yes JAVA of all things. If anything showed poor planning and design, it was the fact they based it on something that adds absolutely nothing of use while taking longer to do anything useful.
because you can literally stare at the source code and audit it. this isn't windows or Mac where you've literally put your security in their hands, FOSS is more or less transparent so if you don't like where things are going you can fork the project and take things your own way. you can submit patches if you find a flaw or backdoor of some sort in the code.
How does it do under varying thermal conditions? chemicals? prolonged use? is it stretchable? how do the interconnects do being bent back on forth hundreds or even thousands of times?
Slashdot Mirror
the theory of evolution by natural selection has been refined and added to as more data was available, for example genetic studies, fossil records etc. as to whether creationists would try to use these documents to support their denialism, I have no doubt they will. In fact, in my experience, they are far more interested in quote mining/splicing sentences together that have absolutely nothing to do with one another to attempt to support their claims about prominent members/icons of the scientific community.
one hundred, do you by chance work at NASA? :P
it's easier to claim thousands of miles per gallon on such small vehicles than it is for a typical car. "we got 3,000 miles per gallon!" sounds far more impressive than "we got 100 miles per gallon" even though 100 mpg is amazing in of its self they are looking for overkill.
what utter nonsense. The ability to predict an action by looking at what your brain is doing has nothing to do with whether or not free will exists. From TFA: sounds to me that the decision making is started before people think it is, nothing more, nothing less.
yeah, it doesn't matter whether you're actually making use of any of that content, you pay anyway.
except that they did nothing of the sort. you're trying to shift the argument to one that is completely irrelevant in this case. an existing legal contract that is binding is not the same as mailing our media that is intended as advertising verging on SPAM.
anything large enough to clear its immediate orbit and roughly sperical- quite arbitrary as Earth anda few other "planets" havent quite cleared their orbits either.
First, you're thinking exactly like the Chinese government and that is rather disturbing. Second, it doesn't really matter what people try to edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to check facts not just blindly obey Wikipedia or SLashdot for that matter. Third, even if they did vandalize these pages it is quite likely that someone somewhere is going to notice and revert the page back.
I always thought that you'd need to show that your trademarked image was reasonably similar which this is nothing of the sort. *or* that one could reasonably associate one brand with another effectively allowing the infringing brand to piggy back on the infringed trademark's notoriety. this isn't the case here either, no one's stupid enough to confuse greeNYC with Macs or any of Apple's products.
I agree with you, "easy to use" is relative. Grandma's idea of "easy to use" isn't necessarily the same as any of ours. she may only need to browse the internet or play simple games, we O.T.O.H may require Bash to be handy for shell scripts to automate different tasks, to refine things etc. Then if you're reasonably familar with *nix commands it's much simpler to communicate fixes for problems, installing software etc. a single command rather than click* click* click** click more....
If they are indeed no more than a list of facts then they shouldn't be copyrightable period. I do think that the presentation of facts in a creative way is most likely patentable but facts themselves are not.
If I remember correctly, facts can not be copyrighted. Copyright implies that there is some creative work being done that should be compensated. Just as a list of telephone numbers can not be copyrighted, so shouldn't a list of facts.
The four biggest problems with OOXML are: 1) it can only be fully implimented by MS which by definition excludes it as a standard. 2) the fact that MS's promise not to sue puts restrictions on software that can not exist in FOSS projects. 3) it is poorly documented and what has been documented has significant technical flaws. 4) proprietary standards are much more difficult to use as archives because the specifications are not fully known, they must be reverse engineered if older documents are to be used on different platforms. governments using OOXML can not guarantee that these records can be recovered at a much later date because of this... completely open standards however can ensure that data can be recovered indefinitely as all can implement the standard.
that's hogwash. you don't use a compiler that you don't have the sources to.
How does it do under varying thermal conditions? chemicals? prolonged use? is it stretchable? how do the interconnects do being bent back on forth hundreds or even thousands of times?