Again, wrong. Water doesn't change weight or mass with temperature. So if you fill a bottle with 1 liter of water, it will have the same weight/mass regardless of temperature. The only way your example would make sense is saying that measuring the volume of 1 kg of water changes with temperature. But again, that doesn't involve constants.
Constants are not measurements, rather they are a number used to convert between measurements. You can remove* a constant from an equation by changing the units used by the equation. That's what Plank did.
Specifically in analyzes specific systems or structures which exhibit "irreducible complexity," meaning any possible reduction in complexity of those systems would yield a non-functional system, which implies that if that system indeed evolved, it evolved with some purpose of what it would become in the future. Right, because everybody knows we don't have any non-functional systems in our bodies....
Seriously, the premise of "irreducible complexity" is flawed in that it assumes that everything must have an immediate purpose, and that purpose must be the same as any future generations.
What about the ones who do present valid arguments for intelligent design? Nobody has ever presented a valid argument for intelligent design, all they do is present multiple and often contradictory arguments _against_ evolution.
No, you want desperately to believe we still live in a world where we aren't at war with Radical Islam. We're at war with Radical Islam like we're at war with illegal drugs. We are told we have to do something, so we end up throwing a lot of time and money making the problem worse, because we never really understood what we were trying to fight in the first place.
Some of us have seen it coming since the fall of the Shah of Iran and nasty events that happened afterwards. Yeah, because that had nothing to do with the Shah being a despot who tortured and killed political dissidents. Or the fact that the same Prime Minister who suggested he leave Iran for his own safety brought Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran and let him setup his own government to replace the monarchy. Surely it was all just because of Radical Islam.
Be thankful we had a Republican President AND Congress who had the balls to ram a tax cut over the wails of the Dems Yes, thankfully our leaders had the courage to use a horrific national tragedy to push through policies they had been advocating since their campaign. 9/11 was terrible, but it didn't really change any of the factors that govern the health of our economy, except perhaps investor confidence. And I don't think tax cuts really did anything to change investor confidence about future terrorist attacks, it's not like tax cuts make another attack less likely.
But intentional acts of War aimed at random have the potential to end our Civilization. You can only end a civilization if you replace it with another with the capitulation of the inhabitants, or kill everyone in it. Since terrorists don't try for the former, and are incapable of the latter, I don't think we're in any danger of them ending Western Civilization. Bombs can only kill people, not civilizations.
Since the end of the IRA name one major terrorist organization that isn't composed of adherents to the "Religion of Peace"? Ok, lets pretend you aren't a total loss and you could think of a couple of regional ones like the Tamil Tigers or Shining Path. Now name one playing on the world stage and/or launching attacks into the 1st World. (i.e. anything the US need worry about) What religions don't consider themselves the "Religion of Peace"? Also, name one major terrorist organization (Muslim or otherwise) playing on the world state and/or launching attacks into the 1st world that is not Al Qaeda. It's not really saying much that _all_ of them are Muslim when there is only _one_ of them total. It's kind of like saying that _all_ nuclear attacks have been carried out by Christians against non-Christians.
Because in the end, Ann Coulter's "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christanity" would WORK Firstly, quoting Ann Coulter, let alone saying she is right, kills almost any chance you had of being taken seriously as an intellectual. Secondly, western civilizations have tried that before, it didn't work out so well for us, and I see no reason why it would work out any better now. It's not their leaders that make them terrorists, nor is it Islam that makes them terrorists. Removing either or both will not change anything.
It figures that the Corporation most identified with cluelessness regarding security would be the first to retreat into a pre 9/11 mindset. Me, I'm more "Mad Eye Moody" in my outlook towards security. Constant Vigilence! Whatever chance you had left of being taken seriously after quoting Ann Coulter is completely removed by referencing Harry Potter. Please try to keep your comments reality-based.
Who says they wanted the truth? I would say that nobody on the school board would be stupid enough to trust the accuracy of a non-anonymous survey, but then I remember that Kansas school board and ID....
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I too got the linux-restricted-modules installed by default, but none of the drivers were enabled by default. I guess they just install them so that things like "Desktop Effects" could be enabled quickly. For things like kernel drivers, I don't usually think of them as "installed" if they aren't loaded into the running kernel, but you are right, I did have them.
Only 'main' and 'restricted' are enabled by default, from my experience anyway, 'universe' and 'multiverse' have to be enabled by the user. I've also never gotten proprietary video drivers for my nvidia card on a default install, though this may change in Ubuntu 7.10. What non-free drivers were installed by default on your machines?
Ubuntu ships with all default drivers being free. I think this may have been the case with Ubuntu <= 7.04, but I think the next release (7.10) will install proprietary video drivers by default if needed to run Compiz. It will probably have a message when installing that proprietary drivers are needed and why they are considered bad, and give you the option at install time to not use them.
Sun sells the combination of UltraSPARC, Solaris, and all their other hardware and software components in small, energy efficient units. It's that combination, and getting that combination right, that you are paying for when you buy Sun.
Yet there are enough companies who already have invested in the infrastructure, and already have a supply chain, who are making chips right now. All these companies would have to do is start cranking out UltraSparc T2s, and selling them at whatever gets them a profit. Heck, Fujitsu already sells UltraSparc processors, usually cheaper than Sun does. Now if you get one or two more companies competing to sell these chips, the price starts to drop. Sun knows that their business isn't in microprocessors, it's in the systems that they build on top of them. By making the chip a commodity, they let other companies spend money increasing the size of Sun's market. It's the same reason they open-sources Solaris, because they aren't in the business of selling operating systems, they're in the business of selling complete systems, and the more people use Solaris, the more people will want a Sun system.
Google licensed OIN patents, it didn't (in this article) contribute any of it's own patents to OIN. Basically what this move does is gives Google the ability to use these patents from IBM, Novell and Red Hat in it's own products. It also (and more importantly) means that Google would lose that ability if it ever decided to sue Linux or any part of what OIN defines as a "Linux System". Since nobody was every really concerned about Google doing that, this is more of a PR move to bolster both Google's standing in the FOSS community, and to give corporate legitimacy to the OIN, which will hopefully spur other, possibly smaller, companies into licensing OIN patents as well, maybe even contributing some of it's own patents. OIN is to patents what FOSS is to copyright.
It could if the bug introduced critical vulnerabilities, or included a virus or spyware, it could tarnish Firefox's reputation even outside of Debian. You know as well as I that the news articles won't specify that it was a debian-introduced bug, they'll just report that Firefox contains a virus, or spyware, or some other horrible thing, and laypeople will equate the Firefox brand with this horrible thing.
^H is the command for deleting a single character. Your "joke" makes no sense in that aspect and is lame. Try harder next time. "You're letting the terror software pirates win!"
My guess is that this gets thrown out at 'a' because 20 seconds of poor video to show a little brother clearly falls under fair use, and so is not a violation of copyright law. I have to take this back already, it turns out that even if the copying did fall under "fair use" and was not a violation of copyright, it would still be a crime just because it was done in a movie theater. Go figure, making a legal copy can still be illegal.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00002319---B000-.html
(a) Offense.-- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, So even though you are explicitly given the right to copy for fair use under copyright law, it is actually illegal to exercise that right without the authorization of the copyright owner under criminal law, just because you're in a movie theater. So the defended here isn't even being charged with copyright violation at all, she's being charged with making a legal copy in a movie theater, which is a criminal offense. That just blows my mind.
Though to be fair to me, I said it wasn't illegal to videotape in a theater, which is true. It's the taping of the copyrighted work that is illegal. Still, the point I was trying to make wasn't relevant, as I now know.
Her 20 seconds of video may not have violated anyone's copyrights but the theater owner has the authority to set the terms of her use of his facility. One of those terms prohibits recording devices regardless of intent. True, but violating theater policy is not a crime, you can't be arrested for it. The theater owner's only recourse is to ask the violator to leave. If they don't leave, then they are trespassing, which they can be arrested for.
The theater manager decided that an actual crime was probably being committed (distribution should be a crime, not copying, but alas, it is), and called the police to report that crime, which she was then charged with. Since the theater is pressing charges, it is up to the courts now to determine if a) the action the defended is charged with is actually a crime, and b) if the defended committed the action they are charged with. My guess is that this gets thrown out at 'a' because 20 seconds of poor video to show a little brother clearly falls under fair use, and so is not a violation of copyright law.
I'm surprised there hasn't been some discrimination or other type of infringment suit brought against a HOA which would not allow you to buy a home if you didn't sign a HOA agreement? You cannot discriminate based on race, gender, or ethnicity. Other factors, even age, have been upheld in court. Purchasing a home in a neighborhood covered by an HOA will have in the purchase contract your agreement to abide by the current and future rules established by the HOA over certainly aspects of your new purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, wrong. Water doesn't change weight or mass with temperature. So if you fill a bottle with 1 liter of water, it will have the same weight/mass regardless of temperature. The only way your example would make sense is saying that measuring the volume of 1 kg of water changes with temperature. But again, that doesn't involve constants.
Constants are not measurements, rather they are a number used to convert between measurements. You can remove* a constant from an equation by changing the units used by the equation. That's what Plank did.
* By remove I mean reduce to 1
Seriously, the premise of "irreducible complexity" is flawed in that it assumes that everything must have an immediate purpose, and that purpose must be the same as any future generations.
Probably the surveys anonymous, otherwise the students would be less likely to tell the truth.
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I too got the linux-restricted-modules installed by default, but none of the drivers were enabled by default. I guess they just install them so that things like "Desktop Effects" could be enabled quickly. For things like kernel drivers, I don't usually think of them as "installed" if they aren't loaded into the running kernel, but you are right, I did have them.
Only 'main' and 'restricted' are enabled by default, from my experience anyway, 'universe' and 'multiverse' have to be enabled by the user. I've also never gotten proprietary video drivers for my nvidia card on a default install, though this may change in Ubuntu 7.10. What non-free drivers were installed by default on your machines?
Sun sells the combination of UltraSPARC, Solaris, and all their other hardware and software components in small, energy efficient units. It's that combination, and getting that combination right, that you are paying for when you buy Sun.
These are no desktop chips.
Yet there are enough companies who already have invested in the infrastructure, and already have a supply chain, who are making chips right now. All these companies would have to do is start cranking out UltraSparc T2s, and selling them at whatever gets them a profit. Heck, Fujitsu already sells UltraSparc processors, usually cheaper than Sun does. Now if you get one or two more companies competing to sell these chips, the price starts to drop. Sun knows that their business isn't in microprocessors, it's in the systems that they build on top of them. By making the chip a commodity, they let other companies spend money increasing the size of Sun's market. It's the same reason they open-sources Solaris, because they aren't in the business of selling operating systems, they're in the business of selling complete systems, and the more people use Solaris, the more people will want a Sun system.
Google licensed OIN patents, it didn't (in this article) contribute any of it's own patents to OIN. Basically what this move does is gives Google the ability to use these patents from IBM, Novell and Red Hat in it's own products. It also (and more importantly) means that Google would lose that ability if it ever decided to sue Linux or any part of what OIN defines as a "Linux System". Since nobody was every really concerned about Google doing that, this is more of a PR move to bolster both Google's standing in the FOSS community, and to give corporate legitimacy to the OIN, which will hopefully spur other, possibly smaller, companies into licensing OIN patents as well, maybe even contributing some of it's own patents. OIN is to patents what FOSS is to copyright.
It could if the bug introduced critical vulnerabilities, or included a virus or spyware, it could tarnish Firefox's reputation even outside of Debian. You know as well as I that the news articles won't specify that it was a debian-introduced bug, they'll just report that Firefox contains a virus, or spyware, or some other horrible thing, and laypeople will equate the Firefox brand with this horrible thing.
Canonical is working on one: http://www.canonical.com/landscape
Because not many people will understand the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_Universe
Makes sense to me.
Some of us already do the right thing here, and the dollar amount is exactly 0.
I believe Motorola makes Sparc-compatible processors, not sure if they're based on Opensparc of if they licensed it from Sun.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
Though to be fair to me, I said it wasn't illegal to videotape in a theater, which is true. It's the taping of the copyrighted work that is illegal. Still, the point I was trying to make wasn't relevant, as I now know.
The theater manager decided that an actual crime was probably being committed (distribution should be a crime, not copying, but alas, it is), and called the police to report that crime, which she was then charged with. Since the theater is pressing charges, it is up to the courts now to determine if a) the action the defended is charged with is actually a crime, and b) if the defended committed the action they are charged with. My guess is that this gets thrown out at 'a' because 20 seconds of poor video to show a little brother clearly falls under fair use, and so is not a violation of copyright law.