And if you can't see any difference between encouraging further scrutiny of evolution from wanting to teach bogus science then I might be inclined to conclude that people such as yourself may be just as guilty of holding back science as you would accuse people who want to teach bogus science to be
First, I never stated that I was against questioning evolution, or any scientific theory. I might believe that you brought up this straw-man position because my actual position is quite reasonable, given the topic.
I am just wondering what "further scrutiny" of evolution one might get from a grade school student. Or even a above average high school student. What makes you think grade school students even have the foundation to be questioning the boundaries of science, especially with such a charged topic as evolution?
I am all for continued study of evolution, I just believe that we live in a real world. Which means, that at the high school and grade school level, there is not enough baseline data that has been assimilated to do so. You cannot peer from the top of a mountain without having walked up it. Well, unless you have a helicopter. Which is why most analogies are bad, there is always some aspect that does not fit the original situation. Anyway.
It is ultimately no different than people who have a religious agenda from demanding that people shouldn't be questioning their theories either.... and just as dogmatic.
Stuff it. Contrary to your assertion, I actually know a bit about science, and the history of science. Science is about correcting past mis-perceptions of the observable universe through repeatable methods. The very foundation of this point of view is that we have mis-perceptions of our observable world, and secondly that we would be better off without those mis-perceptions. But at no time do we lose sight of the awareness that the next real world data point could change our theories, drastically or subtly. I deny your charge almost entirely. The only thing I am standing against in this topic is the provable fact that creationists and ID'ers will use this to unscientifically critique evolution.
You would probably be in shock at what I question about our Reality.
Possibly even worse, because in spite of religious dogma, science still progressed, however much faster it might have advanced without such delays, but wanting to actively discourage questioning of any scientific theory, even one that is universally accepted as fact, simply because of how some people will utilize the opportunity to further their own agendas rather than science is to actually sabotage the very scientific method that got us to where we actually are.
So, I am actually worse than those people who try to subvert science education by trying to stick their religious theories into science? Just wow. And your reasoning is that I "actively discourage questioning of any scientific theory".
Again, you are so far off base on this rant that I am left questioning what you are fighting in posting this. Let me quote from my original post, to see if criticisms actually apply. Look, we are doing science!:
Evolution, believe it or not, is continually being subjected to "further scrutiny". It's just useless to do so in a classroom setting when the "further scrutity" is a new code word for creationist bullshit. This bill does nothing to further the actual science, it's all about switching code words.
Yup, that is surely a ringing call that proves your point. I am unabashedly saying here that no one should question established scientific theory. Oh, wait. I'm saying the exact opposite, that evolution is continually being challenged! Wow, I wonder how you could have missed that?
I am left with the feeling that you have painted a whole cloth using my post as simply a backdrop, so I felt motivated to reply. The contents of your painting are a view into your own mind, since it has very little to do with my actual post. And now I've annotated it with my comments.
So because you think that people who endorse creation will attempt to use this as some sort of loophole through which they can slip in arguments that don't actually stand up to scientific scrutiny, you would rather that the currently accepted theory not be encouraged to be subjected to any further scrutiny than it already has been either?
It appears you have an axe to grind. Let me help you sharpen it.
Because people who endorse creation will use this a a loophole, I would rather that they stick to teaching science in the classroom. Now, we all know the creationists are not going to play fair and stick to actual scientific critiques of evolution. This is established fact.
Evolution, believe it or not, is continually being subjected to "further scrutiny". It's just useless to do so in a classroom setting when the "further scrutity" is a new code word for creationist bullshit. This bill does nothing to further the actual science, it's all about switching code words.
Uhmmm.. wow. that's all I can say is just... wow. Talk about cutting of one's nose to spite their face.
No, it really is similar to cutting out an infection so it doesn't kill you. If you can't see the difference between not wanting bogus science taught in high school and not wanting "further scrutity" of evolution you may be a lost cause.
My recommendation is to talk to the faculty at your current university. See what they recommend, and be truthful about why you want to go to grad school. Slashdot is not the place to find out about this stuff, most people here have no clue.
I guess I would beg to differ on this point. It may just be my bias confirmation but I see slashdot having a higher than ordinary ratio of people with some kind of advanced degree.
These people all have had a first hand experience with this. I'd assume that at least a few of them learned something from it, and are willing to share that. It's certainly going to be a much larger cross section of people who "have a clue" than one university.
And the parent post is and example of why many people should distrust people who freely use analogies.
The only use of the Parent's analogy is to get people to think in a certain way, not to illuminate the original topic.
This is not shutting one's blinds or password protecting one's computer. If you wish to use an analogy, use an appropriate one.
You should take this advice yourself, DaveV1.0.
This is building a sound-proof room in a bunker behind a 20ft, steel-reinforced, cinder block wall topped with barbed wire and watched by security cameras, and a gate guard that is specifically instructed to sound a silent alarm if the police show up and then to delay the police as long as possible before letting the police in.
Really? I thought this was eating a double cheezburger with bacon, but ordering it with pickles instead of without!
This is using a piece of software that requires a 64 character password, which will write 1s and 0s directly to the drive if there are two consecutive password failures, on a computer kept in a room with a security system which will hit the drive with a magnet pulse and fry the electronics if the room is breached, and turns the only entryway into an electromagnet to erase the drives if someone tries to remove the boxes.
If you want an actual Analogy to the real world, try this:
It's like two people are talking on the street, and one says - it's not private enough out here, lets take our discussion elsewhere. Then, they go to a crowded chinese restaurant, but the guy who suggested they get off the street pays.
Fourth, don't be too literal with the license details. If you have three VMs running XP on a XP host and you try to call that four licenses you'll get skewered by your boss, just as you should.
This attitute could cost you boatloads of cash should the BSA audit.
If you have 100 VMs lying around that have Photoshop on them, guess who needs 100 Photoshop licenses?
At least, that is what some corporate lawyers have told us.
This can be a real issue in some environments, where people clone VMs and are able to do so ad-hoc. It's just so easy to do.
And here on your left, folks, is an example of Libertarianism in it's prime:
I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach.
Yes, the standard rant.
Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages...
Good so far. We could, in practice, identify all polluters and properly force them to cover the true costs of their activities. FOrce them to cover their externalities.
...it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution.
Wow. That, but not regulation. Hmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated.
Right, just the things that *you* think are pollutants. The "provable" pollutants. How many decades fight was it before cigarette manufacturers agreed that their products were "provably" harmful? What's that? They still say that cigartettes aren't harmful? Hmm.
The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".
Um, hello? Do you know what most "regulations" entail? Try this - they generally define an accepted and acceptable method of doing business with economic incentives (such as fines) for not doing so.
Congratulations, on having decided that regulation is the best method for dealing with pollution. Oh, only just don't call it "regulation" - that's a bad word, even if it describes the approach you wish to take.
So, never run any VMs, then? Or only allow "trusted users" to run VMs?
Because if I'm a malicious user, I can gain root in my VM hosted on your box through a local privilege escalation attack. Then, I not only gain access to your hypervisor, but to every other VM instance on that machine.
Sweet.
Good thing that no one would ever use a VM, isn't it?
People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
How is it a conspiracy "theory" when cities have actually been caught shortening yellow lights?
It certainly is a conspiracy, since they never meant the public to know that they were busy endangering lives by trying to increase revenue.
People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
I consider it a might more evil to derive revenue by increasing the chance for collisions.
You are almost correct. At higher levels, the goal is generally to make the company seem more successful. Perception is everything.
This is because share price is the end-all for these officers. If the stock doesn't perform, they are generally out.
Things might work as you said: "promote those who do a good job managing people as measured by success..." except the metric from the top is stock price.
This is driven down the chain through a variety of initiatives and policies that only sometimes are designed to drive success of the business. More often, they hurt the overall long term success through short sighted actions that drive stock price not actual performance. Since the overall metric is not actually tied to performance, guess what - people will align to that metric, not to performance.
Certainly there are companies that do not look to next quarter but to next decade, but they seem few and far between.
I don't believe you understand how to put 2 + 2 together.
If a business actually wants a large number of beta testers, perhaps they would advertise in some fashion?
It is well within the bounds of logical deduction to conclude Google did not want large numbers of beta testers based on their behaviour.
What does it even mean to be a hardly publicized method/API? If it's documented and on the web, it's publicized. Does Google have to spam it on their homepage to make it not "hardly publicized"?
Well, perhaps you're being thick on purpose. I would expect that if google had wanted to publicize this we might have seen a something like what they did with gmail, buzz generating, invites, etc. So "hardly publicized" fits quite properly.
If you remove the "hardly publicized" portion (since Google never stated that), calling it an experiment/early testing stage does NOT imply it wants to keep the number of users down.
Lastly, factual information is there for synthesis, not for blindly repeating the information. Please try to do so instead of trying to pick apart someone who has done so correctly (IMO).
What implies that they wanted to keep the numbers down is the fact of the lack of massive blitz campaign shouting the service from the rooftops (you know, that "hardly publicized" quote actually does mean something). *That* is the way to get a LARGE number of beta testers.
Apple wants to regulate the quality of third-party software for their platform.
The "correct balance" is not necessarily what Apple wants.
So, you're wrong--the correct balance is between.
This does not follow from your previous statement. It is an undeserved conclusion and a bald statement of opinion, not a fact.
When you call someone wrong, it generally does help to have an actual argument besides a reference to Authority especially when it is easily proven that the Authority is not looking for the correct balance - they are looking for the bottom line.
Of course there is more than a syntatic difference between a reference and a pointer in C++.
For one, references CANNOT be null, while pointers are allowed to be null. I'd say that is an indictor of a pretty big semantic difference, wouldn't you?
To say that * or & "fixes" the difference is handwaving around the fact that pointers and references are two different, yet related concepts (that is, they have more that a "purely syntatical" difference).
To be pendatic, you can't even write a null reference in C++; the compiler will complain (more pendantic - although you can delete the underlying object sometimes, this does not make the reference null, merely dangling) so it is also nonsensical to talk about "null references" vis a vis "null pointers" per se, except in a most general way.
And no, GPL'ing all the government-funded software isn't the answer, either. At the very least, the companies will just find a way around that license.
Umm. What? Just how do you propose that a company "find a way around" the GPL?
Don't you think that Microsoft might have wanted to do this for some time? Do you believe IBM would still be playing in the OSS space if they could "find a way around" the GPL?
I'm pretty sure there are major incentives for MANY companies to find a way around that license. It seems, however that no one has done so yet.
What makes you blithely state they can? Your statement seems to have no basis in fact. The closest anyone has come is to simply violate the license, but that tends to get their wrist slapped when they are caught. I don't regard "not getting caught" as "a way around" the license.
Microsoft can still sue anyone using Qt as well as Nokia for providing it. It is merely less likely than them suing the Mono team.
Microsoft could sue you for violating one of their patents with your post. That's a lot more improbable than suing Qt, but there is nothing preventing them legally from doing so.
Unfortunately(?), there are few "utterly impossible" things when it comes to lawsuits.
Even if Qt does not violate any patents Microsoft has (which is quite unlikely) it does not require being right to be able to sue it only requires the money necessary to pay the lawyers. I believe Microsoft still has a bit of that left.
You must have some kind of super vision to be able to read a passport, or any other normally written characters at 25 feet. Definitely line of sight, definitely in range of RFID readers. Probably not in range of your eyesight.
Sure, this breaks down at ~10 feet or so, but come on, your response seems lacking in sense.
First, what do you consider a Singularity adept? Any type of definition will do. Just curious.
Second, how do you propose to "keep control" of a consciousness that is smarter than us? We have enough trouble keeping squirrels out of bird feeders...
Consider an Intelligence that is able to see the Big Picture, which we are not able to do (by definition). This intelligenge proposes solutions to our problems, which we act on, or have It act on.
How many possibilities and opportunities does that provide to break free of any control imposed by humans? Infinite, or more than that?
It is hardly in our interests to create a "singularity"; intelligent machines (or people) do not allow themselves to be replaced.
Here you assert something which has been proven wrong time and time again. So, regardless of what else might be correct about your thought experiment it fails on this point.
Human history is full of intelligent people coming up with replacements for themselves. This is factual information; just stating the opposite has no effect on reality.
As far as AI's, I don't believe you can assert with enough certainty what It would be like to make the statement you made.
Way to destory to discussion, you really think i'm going to read whatever you have to say after that display is dickwad behaviour?
Um, yes?
too long, didn't read..
Oh boy, one small jab at the stature of your intellect and you decide not to think anymore. Good job. I guess you really are an idiot, at least by practice. I'll try to keep this short so it doesn't overflow your small buffer.
The "discussion" that I replied to was your post consisting entirely of:
You say I'm wrong but everything I said was correct.
Without copyright law I could abuse the GPL.
Yeah, high quality "discussion" there. I really ruined it. What a nice reply to someone (else) who bothered to post a logical response to why you were wrong with your original statement.
Especially the part where you say "I'm RIGHT!. You are WRONG!. NYAH!" Oh wait, that's your end of the whole "discussion".
Meanwhile, if you had bothered to read what I wrote you might see that we don't need the GPL if there is no copyright, therefore your point is moot.
Sigh, this post is probably too long as well.
If you can't see how you are being an idiot, well, I can't help that, especially since I detailed the reason and you refuse to read it.
I am also not your mother and prefer to tell you exactly what appears to be true. Would it have helped if I said "You appear to be an idiot." ?
Or would you accept examples, based on this discussion?
A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.
What you say seems to sound reasonable, unless you actually think about it.
A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they will see some advertisements that contain sexual content these days. Period. One can assume that some of the sexual content will include someone else's idea of what is acceptable. This is because advertisers have found that, yes, sex still sells. Why should the Super Bowl be any different than any other time?
It is not reasonable to expect advertising to always be in good taste. It is certainly not reasonable to expect that no commercial contains sexual content that offends a $random_person, even if they do happen to have a family.
That said, there are consequences, positive and negative, to advertising in any form. From your post it seems Go Daddy is about to find out about some of those.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you can't see any difference between encouraging further scrutiny of evolution from wanting to teach bogus science then I might be inclined to conclude that people such as yourself may be just as guilty of holding back science as you would accuse people who want to teach bogus science to be
First, I never stated that I was against questioning evolution, or any scientific theory. I might believe that you brought up this straw-man position because my actual position is quite reasonable, given the topic.
I am just wondering what "further scrutiny" of evolution one might get from a grade school student. Or even a above average high school student. What makes you think grade school students even have the foundation to be questioning the boundaries of science, especially with such a charged topic as evolution?
I am all for continued study of evolution, I just believe that we live in a real world. Which means, that at the high school and grade school level, there is not enough baseline data that has been assimilated to do so. You cannot peer from the top of a mountain without having walked up it. Well, unless you have a helicopter. Which is why most analogies are bad, there is always some aspect that does not fit the original situation. Anyway.
It is ultimately no different than people who have a religious agenda from demanding that people shouldn't be questioning their theories either.... and just as dogmatic.
Stuff it. Contrary to your assertion, I actually know a bit about science, and the history of science. Science is about correcting past mis-perceptions of the observable universe through repeatable methods. The very foundation of this point of view is that we have mis-perceptions of our observable world, and secondly that we would be better off without those mis-perceptions. But at no time do we lose sight of the awareness that the next real world data point could change our theories, drastically or subtly. I deny your charge almost entirely. The only thing I am standing against in this topic is the provable fact that creationists and ID'ers will use this to unscientifically critique evolution.
You would probably be in shock at what I question about our Reality.
Possibly even worse, because in spite of religious dogma, science still progressed, however much faster it might have advanced without such delays, but wanting to actively discourage questioning of any scientific theory, even one that is universally accepted as fact, simply because of how some people will utilize the opportunity to further their own agendas rather than science is to actually sabotage the very scientific method that got us to where we actually are.
So, I am actually worse than those people who try to subvert science education by trying to stick their religious theories into science? Just wow. And your reasoning is that I "actively discourage questioning of any scientific theory".
Again, you are so far off base on this rant that I am left questioning what you are fighting in posting this. Let me quote from my original post, to see if criticisms actually apply. Look, we are doing science!:
Evolution, believe it or not, is continually being subjected to "further scrutiny". It's just useless to do so in a classroom setting when the "further scrutity" is a new code word for creationist bullshit. This bill does nothing to further the actual science, it's all about switching code words.
Yup, that is surely a ringing call that proves your point. I am unabashedly saying here that no one should question established scientific theory. Oh, wait. I'm saying the exact opposite, that evolution is continually being challenged! Wow, I wonder how you could have missed that?
I am left with the feeling that you have painted a whole cloth using my post as simply a backdrop, so I felt motivated to reply. The contents of your painting are a view into your own mind, since it has very little to do with my actual post. And now I've annotated it with my comments.
Regards.
You are assuming that the goal is to encourage critical thinking, rather than as a new code word for teaching religion in science class.
I wouldn't be so naive if I were you, or you might never make it to v1.1.
So because you think that people who endorse creation will attempt to use this as some sort of loophole through which they can slip in arguments that don't actually stand up to scientific scrutiny, you would rather that the currently accepted theory not be encouraged to be subjected to any further scrutiny than it already has been either?
It appears you have an axe to grind. Let me help you sharpen it.
Because people who endorse creation will use this a a loophole, I would rather that they stick to teaching science in the classroom. Now, we all know the creationists are not going to play fair and stick to actual scientific critiques of evolution. This is established fact.
Evolution, believe it or not, is continually being subjected to "further scrutiny". It's just useless to do so in a classroom setting when the "further scrutity" is a new code word for creationist bullshit. This bill does nothing to further the actual science, it's all about switching code words.
Uhmmm.. wow. that's all I can say is just... wow. Talk about cutting of one's nose to spite their face.
No, it really is similar to cutting out an infection so it doesn't kill you. If you can't see the difference between not wanting bogus science taught in high school and not wanting "further scrutity" of evolution you may be a lost cause.
Cheers.
My recommendation is to talk to the faculty at your current university. See what they recommend, and be truthful about why you want to go to grad school. Slashdot is not the place to find out about this stuff, most people here have no clue.
I guess I would beg to differ on this point. It may just be my bias confirmation but I see slashdot having a higher than ordinary ratio of people with some kind of advanced degree.
These people all have had a first hand experience with this. I'd assume that at least a few of them learned something from it, and are willing to share that. It's certainly going to be a much larger cross section of people who "have a clue" than one university.
Regards.
And the parent post is and example of why many people should distrust people who freely use analogies.
The only use of the Parent's analogy is to get people to think in a certain way, not to illuminate the original topic.
This is not shutting one's blinds or password protecting one's computer. If you wish to use an analogy, use an appropriate one.
You should take this advice yourself, DaveV1.0.
This is building a sound-proof room in a bunker behind a 20ft, steel-reinforced, cinder block wall topped with barbed wire and watched by security cameras, and a gate guard that is specifically instructed to sound a silent alarm if the police show up and then to delay the police as long as possible before letting the police in.
Really? I thought this was eating a double cheezburger with bacon, but ordering it with pickles instead of without!
This is using a piece of software that requires a 64 character password, which will write 1s and 0s directly to the drive if there are two consecutive password failures, on a computer kept in a room with a security system which will hit the drive with a magnet pulse and fry the electronics if the room is breached, and turns the only entryway into an electromagnet to erase the drives if someone tries to remove the boxes.
If you want an actual Analogy to the real world, try this:
It's like two people are talking on the street, and one says - it's not private enough out here, lets take our discussion elsewhere. Then, they go to a crowded chinese restaurant, but the guy who suggested they get off the street pays.
Regards.
I just wanted to comment on one of your points:
Fourth, don't be too literal with the license details. If you have three VMs running XP on a XP host and you try to call that four licenses you'll get skewered by your boss, just as you should.
This attitute could cost you boatloads of cash should the BSA audit.
If you have 100 VMs lying around that have Photoshop on them, guess who needs 100 Photoshop licenses?
At least, that is what some corporate lawyers have told us.
This can be a real issue in some environments, where people clone VMs and are able to do so ad-hoc. It's just so easy to do.
and this, kids is why you should preview.
Although there should probably not be a regulation forcing one to do so.
And here on your left, folks, is an example of Libertarianism in it's prime:
I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach.
Yes, the standard rant.
Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages...
Good so far. We could, in practice, identify all polluters and properly force them to cover the true costs of their activities. FOrce them to cover their externalities.
...it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution.
Wow. That, but not regulation. Hmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated.
Right, just the things that *you* think are pollutants. The "provable" pollutants. How many decades fight was it before cigarette manufacturers agreed that their products were "provably" harmful? What's that? They still say that cigartettes aren't harmful? Hmm.
The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".
Um, hello? Do you know what most "regulations" entail? Try this - they generally define an accepted and acceptable method of doing business with economic incentives (such as fines) for not doing so.
Congratulations, on having decided that regulation is the best method for dealing with pollution. Oh, only just don't call it "regulation" - that's a bad word, even if it describes the approach you wish to take.
More Kool-aid?
Hmmm. So, all these companies that were not gambling.
Did they happen to take a look at what they were actually buying? You know, what was actually in those CDS contracts?
Wasn't it their "fiduciary duty" that I keep hearing all so much about to take a look?
I mean, AIG is another company, you know, one that wants to make money.
So you just trust them to sell you something worth $value, simply because they say it is?
No independent risk analysis on the actual paper?
I have come CDS contracts for sale to any company that wants that kind of deal.
So, never run any VMs, then? Or only allow "trusted users" to run VMs?
Because if I'm a malicious user, I can gain root in my VM hosted on your box through a local privilege escalation attack. Then, I not only gain access to your hypervisor, but to every other VM instance on that machine.
Sweet.
Good thing that no one would ever use a VM, isn't it?
People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
How is it a conspiracy "theory" when cities have actually been caught shortening yellow lights?
It certainly is a conspiracy, since they never meant the public to know that they were busy endangering lives by trying to increase revenue.
People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
I consider it a might more evil to derive revenue by increasing the chance for collisions.
Regards.
You are almost correct. At higher levels, the goal is generally to make the company seem more successful. Perception is everything.
This is because share price is the end-all for these officers. If the stock doesn't perform, they are generally out.
Things might work as you said: "promote those who do a good job managing people as measured by success..." except the metric from the top is stock price.
This is driven down the chain through a variety of initiatives and policies that only sometimes are designed to drive success of the business. More often, they hurt the overall long term success through short sighted actions that drive stock price not actual performance. Since the overall metric is not actually tied to performance, guess what - people will align to that metric, not to performance.
Certainly there are companies that do not look to next quarter but to next decade, but they seem few and far between.
I don't believe you understand how to put 2 + 2 together.
If a business actually wants a large number of beta testers, perhaps they would advertise in some fashion?
It is well within the bounds of logical deduction to conclude Google did not want large numbers of beta testers based on their behaviour.
What does it even mean to be a hardly publicized method/API? If it's documented and on the web, it's publicized. Does Google have to spam it on their homepage to make it not "hardly publicized"?
Well, perhaps you're being thick on purpose. I would expect that if google had wanted to publicize this we might have seen a something like what they did with gmail, buzz generating, invites, etc. So "hardly publicized" fits quite properly.
If you remove the "hardly publicized" portion (since Google never stated that), calling it an experiment/early testing stage does NOT imply it wants to keep the number of users down.
Lastly, factual information is there for synthesis, not for blindly repeating the information. Please try to do so instead of trying to pick apart someone who has done so correctly (IMO).
What implies that they wanted to keep the numbers down is the fact of the lack of massive blitz campaign shouting the service from the rooftops (you know, that "hardly publicized" quote actually does mean something). *That* is the way to get a LARGE number of beta testers.
Regards.
Apple wants to regulate the quality of third-party software for their platform.
The "correct balance" is not necessarily what Apple wants.
So, you're wrong--the correct balance is between.
This does not follow from your previous statement. It is an undeserved conclusion and a bald statement of opinion, not a fact.
When you call someone wrong, it generally does help to have an actual argument besides a reference to Authority especially when it is easily proven that the Authority is not looking for the correct balance - they are looking for the bottom line.
Yeah, they certainly don't have the budget to composite in 14 whole different images of small scale on a digital print...
So you believe that making gun ownership illegal will result in fewer people in prison, and fewer prisons?
Hmm. I don't quite see your reasoning.
Or are you simply trying to tie gun ownership to an unrelated tautology to try and link gun ownership with something unsavory?
Just curious.
Are the accidents all on the same stretch of road?
Mods are on crack.
Of course there is more than a syntatic difference between a reference and a pointer in C++.
For one, references CANNOT be null, while pointers are allowed to be null. I'd say that is an indictor of a pretty big semantic difference, wouldn't you?
To say that * or & "fixes" the difference is handwaving around the fact that pointers and references are two different, yet related concepts (that is, they have more that a "purely syntatical" difference).
To be pendatic, you can't even write a null reference in C++; the compiler will complain (more pendantic - although you can delete the underlying object sometimes, this does not make the reference null, merely dangling) so it is also nonsensical to talk about "null references" vis a vis "null pointers" per se, except in a most general way.
Regards.
And no, GPL'ing all the government-funded software isn't the answer, either. At the very least, the companies will just find a way around that license.
Umm. What? Just how do you propose that a company "find a way around" the GPL?
Don't you think that Microsoft might have wanted to do this for some time? Do you believe IBM would still be playing in the OSS space if they could "find a way around" the GPL?
I'm pretty sure there are major incentives for MANY companies to find a way around that license. It seems, however that no one has done so yet.
What makes you blithely state they can? Your statement seems to have no basis in fact. The closest anyone has come is to simply violate the license, but that tends to get their wrist slapped when they are caught. I don't regard "not getting caught" as "a way around" the license.
Regards.
Not so.
Microsoft can still sue anyone using Qt as well as Nokia for providing it. It is merely less likely than them suing the Mono team.
Microsoft could sue you for violating one of their patents with your post. That's a lot more improbable than suing Qt, but there is nothing preventing them legally from doing so.
Unfortunately(?), there are few "utterly impossible" things when it comes to lawsuits.
Even if Qt does not violate any patents Microsoft has (which is quite unlikely) it does not require being right to be able to sue it only requires the money necessary to pay the lawyers. I believe Microsoft still has a bit of that left.
You must have some kind of super vision to be able to read a passport, or any other normally written characters at 25 feet. Definitely line of sight, definitely in range of RFID readers. Probably not in range of your eyesight.
Sure, this breaks down at ~10 feet or so, but come on, your response seems lacking in sense.
First, what do you consider a Singularity adept? Any type of definition will do. Just curious.
Second, how do you propose to "keep control" of a consciousness that is smarter than us? We have enough trouble keeping squirrels out of bird feeders...
Consider an Intelligence that is able to see the Big Picture, which we are not able to do (by definition). This intelligenge proposes solutions to our problems, which we act on, or have It act on.
How many possibilities and opportunities does that provide to break free of any control imposed by humans? Infinite, or more than that?
It is hardly in our interests to create a "singularity"; intelligent machines (or people) do not allow themselves to be replaced.
Here you assert something which has been proven wrong time and time again. So, regardless of what else might be correct about your thought experiment it fails on this point.
Human history is full of intelligent people coming up with replacements for themselves. This is factual information; just stating the opposite has no effect on reality.
As far as AI's, I don't believe you can assert with enough certainty what It would be like to make the statement you made.
Way to destory to discussion, you really think i'm going to read whatever you have to say after that display is dickwad behaviour?
Um, yes?
too long, didn't read..
Oh boy, one small jab at the stature of your intellect and you decide not to think anymore. Good job. I guess you really are an idiot, at least by practice. I'll try to keep this short so it doesn't overflow your small buffer.
The "discussion" that I replied to was your post consisting entirely of:
You say I'm wrong but everything I said was correct.
Without copyright law I could abuse the GPL.
Yeah, high quality "discussion" there. I really ruined it. What a nice reply to someone (else) who bothered to post a logical response to why you were wrong with your original statement.
Especially the part where you say "I'm RIGHT!. You are WRONG!. NYAH!" Oh wait, that's your end of the whole "discussion".
Meanwhile, if you had bothered to read what I wrote you might see that we don't need the GPL if there is no copyright, therefore your point is moot.
Sigh, this post is probably too long as well.
If you can't see how you are being an idiot, well, I can't help that, especially since I detailed the reason and you refuse to read it.
I am also not your mother and prefer to tell you exactly what appears to be true. Would it have helped if I said "You appear to be an idiot." ?
Or would you accept examples, based on this discussion?
Just wondering.
A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.
What you say seems to sound reasonable, unless you actually think about it.
A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they will see some advertisements that contain sexual content these days. Period. One can assume that some of the sexual content will include someone else's idea of what is acceptable. This is because advertisers have found that, yes, sex still sells. Why should the Super Bowl be any different than any other time?
It is not reasonable to expect advertising to always be in good taste. It is certainly not reasonable to expect that no commercial contains sexual content that offends a $random_person, even if they do happen to have a family.
That said, there are consequences, positive and negative, to advertising in any form. From your post it seems Go Daddy is about to find out about some of those.