For that matter, how many people realise that Shakespeare lifted most if not all of his stories from earlier sources. I did a term paper a few years back comparing Shakespeare's King Lear to an earlier poem called "The Tragedy of Cordelia" telling the same story with the same characters and the same names, and the overall plot is that of the folk take "Cap o'Rushes". The question isn't where your source material comes from (once it's public domain), it's what you do with it.
I have noticed that most "free, gratis, and open source software" is crap
So is most non-free, non-gratis and closed source software. You just don't notice it so much, because you tend to do more research to find the good stuff before handing over your hard-earned, whereas just a click to try something out seems so easy and tempting.
So, hedonism is the only reason to get a higher education? Because it makes you feel good? There is something horribly wrong with that idea.
It's better than the idea that money is the only reason to get a higher education. After all, what do people want the money for? Because having it makes them happy? Because they can use it to get things that make them happy? Because they can do things with it that make them happy? If the money is just a means to an end (and I'd question the sanity of anybody who thinks it's an end in itself) then you should look at how to maximise that end, not how to maximise the means.
the GPS signals are transmitted at 1.1 -1.5GHz so I assume the signals will also bounce off the ground
They certainly do, and off buildings -- multipath is a big issue for GPS in built-up areas. Your thinking is that the signal will work off ground scatter? Well, it would drop the accuracy, but it would probably still be good enough for tracking, so that might work.
Doesn't matter. If it's not a search or a seizure (and the judge reckons it isn't) then the right of the people to be secure anywhere in their anything from any sort of search or seizure isn't affected.
Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic.
Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for some more facts on the subject.
Er, no. There are plenty of books that will make the point that "Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic", and come to that there are plenty that make strong arguments for the non-existence of any god, but The God Delusion is neither of those, and not the place to look for facts on any subject. It's damn fine rhetoric, but if you dig then you find it rather light on substance.
If software controlling an aircraft crashes and causes the aircraft to crash too and that kills people, I'm pretty sure the software makers might end up liable too.
But the proposed legislation is consumer protection, which is a totally different branch of legislation to that relating to B2B contracts. Yes, the software makers might end up liable, depending on the contract between the service provider and the software supplier, but they might not. There's a lot of Linux used in air traffic control in Europe, but I doubt anybody involved in Linux could end up liable in the event of an accident. Rather, the air traffic service providers have to make sure they have adequate protection against credible failure modes of the Linux element. (I've worked on quite a few safety cases arguing that such protections are adequate, so it's more likely that I'd be liable).
"Mr Justice Laddie ruled that Ball had violated the European Union Copyright Directive, which came into UK law in 2003. He further found that the sale, advertising, use, or possession of such mods chips for commercial purposes was also illegal."
Since Ball was done for selling them I'm not sure what the "also" is doing in that list, but although IANAL it looks to me as if it's not illegal to chip your console or to have a chipped console, you just have to get the stuff to do it from (or get it done) outside the UK.
Yeah, because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid will make reasoned, informed decisions balancing the peoples' and the nations' needs with the demands of the environmental whack-jobs.
Nope, they'd be pretty much as bad as leaving it yo the energy companies. Which is why the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is looking at a National Climate Service rather than leaving it to the partisan groups you mentioned. Whether they'll do a good job or not might be an interesting debate, but saying that one group of people not getting the job would make as bad a job of it as another group of people not getting the job is simply irrelevant.
Well as I stated the protest was for some silly policy, nothing really the big of deal
You think it was just something silly, no big deal. Clearly the protestors though otherwise, and it's her perception of the significance of the issue that would determine the sort of reaction she expected, not yours. My observations stand.
I'm not sure whether it counts because it wasn't ground-breaking in its content, but Darryl Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics" seems to be on a lot of scientists' and mathematicians' bookshelves.
I'd strongly recommend Carl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" -- quite readable (as these things go) and of critical importance in understanding what science actually is -- even if you don't accept Popper's view of what science is, he shows thoroughly why what often passes for "science" amongst amateurs is actually a mash of incompatible views.
I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.
Or she planned a restrained protest but was worried that there might be hotheads other than her on the protest who might cross that line. Or she was worried that there might be hotheads policing the protest for whom the very act of the protest is enough provocation to shoot the protestors. Or that some hothead in the general public might be so offended by the protest that they'd open fire. Or the protest just happened to be in the sort of neighbourhood one wears a bulletproof vest to. Or... and so on.
They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing.
No they were not, because they asked for, and were given, permission to continue their protest on the private property. The moment they failed to leave the private property when told to do so they were traspassing.
I can't speak for "most journalists", but I recall one BBC news journalist saying in a seminar I attended that anybody who thought his job was about "truth" was being naive, and that his job was entertainment. Maybe most older journalists, and perhaps a few idealists fresh out of college may have ideals of reporting news rather than inventing entertainment.
If you remember the purpose of newspapers, and journalists generally is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
Goodness, you have a long memory! For as long as I can remember, the purpose of newspapers has been "Make as much money as you can, by any means you can get away with".
Slashdot Mirror
"allowed" != "endorsed".
For that matter, how many people realise that Shakespeare lifted most if not all of his stories from earlier sources. I did a term paper a few years back comparing Shakespeare's King Lear to an earlier poem called "The Tragedy of Cordelia" telling the same story with the same characters and the same names, and the overall plot is that of the folk take "Cap o'Rushes". The question isn't where your source material comes from (once it's public domain), it's what you do with it.
It's supported by the shelf on which all the shelfware I've bought over the years stands.
I have noticed that most "free, gratis, and open source software" is crap
So is most non-free, non-gratis and closed source software. You just don't notice it so much, because you tend to do more research to find the good stuff before handing over your hard-earned, whereas just a click to try something out seems so easy and tempting.
So, hedonism is the only reason to get a higher education? Because it makes you feel good? There is something horribly wrong with that idea.
It's better than the idea that money is the only reason to get a higher education. After all, what do people want the money for? Because having it makes them happy? Because they can use it to get things that make them happy? Because they can do things with it that make them happy? If the money is just a means to an end (and I'd question the sanity of anybody who thinks it's an end in itself) then you should look at how to maximise that end, not how to maximise the means.
the GPS signals are transmitted at 1.1 -1.5GHz so I assume the signals will also bounce off the ground
They certainly do, and off buildings -- multipath is a big issue for GPS in built-up areas. Your thinking is that the signal will work off ground scatter? Well, it would drop the accuracy, but it would probably still be good enough for tracking, so that might work.
Doesn't matter. If it's not a search or a seizure (and the judge reckons it isn't) then the right of the people to be secure anywhere in their anything from any sort of search or seizure isn't affected.
I'm also wondering where they can put it to be hidden yet still get a decent view of the sky to pick up the GPS signal.
Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic. Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for some more facts on the subject.
Er, no. There are plenty of books that will make the point that "Because you are a member of a religion does in no way make you a religious person, and you can easily be part of a church and remain atheistic", and come to that there are plenty that make strong arguments for the non-existence of any god, but The God Delusion is neither of those, and not the place to look for facts on any subject. It's damn fine rhetoric, but if you dig then you find it rather light on substance.
If software controlling an aircraft crashes and causes the aircraft to crash too and that kills people, I'm pretty sure the software makers might end up liable too.
But the proposed legislation is consumer protection, which is a totally different branch of legislation to that relating to B2B contracts. Yes, the software makers might end up liable, depending on the contract between the service provider and the software supplier, but they might not. There's a lot of Linux used in air traffic control in Europe, but I doubt anybody involved in Linux could end up liable in the event of an accident. Rather, the air traffic service providers have to make sure they have adequate protection against credible failure modes of the Linux element. (I've worked on quite a few safety cases arguing that such protections are adequate, so it's more likely that I'd be liable).
"Mr Justice Laddie ruled that Ball had violated the European Union Copyright Directive, which came into UK law in 2003. He further found that the sale, advertising, use, or possession of such mods chips for commercial purposes was also illegal." Since Ball was done for selling them I'm not sure what the "also" is doing in that list, but although IANAL it looks to me as if it's not illegal to chip your console or to have a chipped console, you just have to get the stuff to do it from (or get it done) outside the UK.
So it was. Sorry!
Yeah, because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid will make reasoned, informed decisions balancing the peoples' and the nations' needs with the demands of the environmental whack-jobs.
Nope, they'd be pretty much as bad as leaving it yo the energy companies. Which is why the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is looking at a National Climate Service rather than leaving it to the partisan groups you mentioned. Whether they'll do a good job or not might be an interesting debate, but saying that one group of people not getting the job would make as bad a job of it as another group of people not getting the job is simply irrelevant.
Well as I stated the protest was for some silly policy, nothing really the big of deal
You think it was just something silly, no big deal. Clearly the protestors though otherwise, and it's her perception of the significance of the issue that would determine the sort of reaction she expected, not yours. My observations stand.
Politicians would never be so direct -- the best you can hope for is "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".
Or even...
I'm not sure whether it counts because it wasn't ground-breaking in its content, but Darryl Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics" seems to be on a lot of scientists' and mathematicians' bookshelves.
I'd strongly recommend Carl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" -- quite readable (as these things go) and of critical importance in understanding what science actually is -- even if you don't accept Popper's view of what science is, he shows thoroughly why what often passes for "science" amongst amateurs is actually a mash of incompatible views.
17-year-olds have this funny tendency to become 18-year-olds...
Though you have to admit, we are talking about an organisation with exceptional capabilities for preventing that...
I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.
Or she planned a restrained protest but was worried that there might be hotheads other than her on the protest who might cross that line. Or she was worried that there might be hotheads policing the protest for whom the very act of the protest is enough provocation to shoot the protestors. Or that some hothead in the general public might be so offended by the protest that they'd open fire. Or the protest just happened to be in the sort of neighbourhood one wears a bulletproof vest to. Or ... and so on.
They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing.
No they were not, because they asked for, and were given, permission to continue their protest on the private property. The moment they failed to leave the private property when told to do so they were traspassing.
But newspapers seem to be particularly effective in making people forget that.
I can't speak for "most journalists", but I recall one BBC news journalist saying in a seminar I attended that anybody who thought his job was about "truth" was being naive, and that his job was entertainment. Maybe most older journalists, and perhaps a few idealists fresh out of college may have ideals of reporting news rather than inventing entertainment.
If you remember the purpose of newspapers, and journalists generally is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
Goodness, you have a long memory! For as long as I can remember, the purpose of newspapers has been "Make as much money as you can, by any means you can get away with".
Well, clearly the music industry changed its business model and moved away from a dependency on IP, didn't it?