Exactly NoScript doesn't really mean No-Scripts, it means No-Scripts-I-Don't-Explicitly-Allow. Just because I don't want anyone with a website to be able to run whatever they want on my box, doesn't mean that I don't ever use JS.
* S: (adj) akin, kindred (similar in quality or character) "a feeling akin to terror"; "kindred souls"; "the amateur is closely related to the collector"
The GP was right, this is definitely akin to open source. It may not be open source, but that's not what he said.
Look, you are suggesting that there is a difference between the public domain works that the copyright has run out on go into and the public domain that works are released into deliberately. There isn't. Once a work has entered the public domain, however it gets there, there is no way for someone to re-copyright it.
Public Domain isn't a Licence (US) it is just that, giving up your copyright, if a work is in the PD, then no one owns a copyright on it (or can get one), transferring the copyright to another person or corporation is another common way of giving up your copyright.
I don't think it has ever been proven to be a sufficient definition to recreate man, or any other living creature.
Isn't DNA, by definition enough to recreate a human (or other carbon-based life-form)?
Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that all the information isn't there - it has to be or you wouldn't have been able to exist in the first place. The only thing not included is whatever is learned from your environment, so memories are out (we think).
Actually, 'sharing' implies two or more people, both using a resource, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is.
In no way does the word imply consent of anyone except for the two people doing the sharing. If I share my cookies with you, does that imply Nabisco's consent?
Care to elaborate on why you don't think I've read it? (I assume you mean TSiN, he's written others, which I haven't read)
Kurzwiel predicts that the singularity will happen within the next 50 years, and his arguments are pretty convincing. My point is that he could be wrong in practice, even if he got the theory perfect.
Which means that 200 years IS not really that long, and, in 200 years, we might just be wishing we still had the coal that the GGGP is saying that we have plenty of.
Relying on a paradigm shift to bail you out is the height of folly.
Suppose that the singularity is inevitable, if Kurzwiel carried just one digit wrong, we might not live to see it because we have used up all the coal.
Computers that play chess, go, and similar games can't hope to make the best possible move during each turn - there isn't nearly enough time to run through all possible combinations.
Computers that play go can't hope to make the best possible move during each turn, because there is no best possible move. Some moves are more likely to be better, sometimes, depending on your opponent and his/her state of mind and past history.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
*raises hand*
See, that always made me feel bad for the poor mutt. It's not it's fault that it's creators made it into a memory hog.
Sometimes I would turn it back on so it could get some exercise, even have it look up a file or two so it felt useful...
Thank you.
There! they're!
Exactly NoScript doesn't really mean No-Scripts, it means No-Scripts-I-Don't-Explicitly-Allow. Just because I don't want anyone with a website to be able to run whatever they want on my box, doesn't mean that I don't ever use JS.
But how do you know she^Whe is a witch? (no girls on teh internets)
Ok, I'll bite.
What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?
The GP was right, this is definitely akin to open source. It may not be open source, but that's not what he said.
Actually, that was us doing our first experiment on the LHC, how we got back in time and so far away... well I guess we'll find out in a few weeks...
Look, you are suggesting that there is a difference between the public domain works that the copyright has run out on go into and the public domain that works are released into deliberately. There isn't. Once a work has entered the public domain, however it gets there, there is no way for someone to re-copyright it.
This is in the US, YMMV.
Interesting, if this comment had read:
Just stipulate an IQ higher than 80. That'll keep the blacks out.
It would have been modded troll long ago...
No, you don't.
Stop trolling.
Public Domain isn't a Licence (US) it is just that, giving up your copyright, if a work is in the PD, then no one owns a copyright on it (or can get one), transferring the copyright to another person or corporation is another common way of giving up your copyright.
After a bit of research - I stand corrected. :-D
Thanks for the info.
...it would make me feel sort of guilty, being the template for the harbinger of extinction.
You're right. That would be terrible.
*quickly signs up* ;-D
I don't think it has ever been proven to be a sufficient definition to recreate man, or any other living creature.
Isn't DNA, by definition enough to recreate a human (or other carbon-based life-form)?
Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that all the information isn't there - it has to be or you wouldn't have been able to exist in the first place. The only thing not included is whatever is learned from your environment, so memories are out (we think).
Touche
wait - French Canadian is a language? I thought that the French Canadians spoke French.
Yes, but don't forget to label it "DO NOT EAT" in big letters so that some idiot doesn't find you and sue...
So, you're saying that if I stole the cookies and then split them with you, then its not sharing?
Actually, 'sharing' implies two or more people, both using a resource, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is.
In no way does the word imply consent of anyone except for the two people doing the sharing. If I share my cookies with you, does that imply Nabisco's consent?
Care to elaborate on why you don't think I've read it? (I assume you mean TSiN, he's written others, which I haven't read)
Kurzwiel predicts that the singularity will happen within the next 50 years, and his arguments are pretty convincing. My point is that he could be wrong in practice, even if he got the theory perfect.
Which means that 200 years IS not really that long, and, in 200 years, we might just be wishing we still had the coal that the GGGP is saying that we have plenty of.
Relying on a paradigm shift to bail you out is the height of folly.
Suppose that the singularity is inevitable, if Kurzwiel carried just one digit wrong, we might not live to see it because we have used up all the coal.
Computers that play chess, go, and similar games can't hope to make the best possible move during each turn - there isn't nearly enough time to run through all possible combinations.
Computers that play go can't hope to make the best possible move during each turn, because there is no best possible move. Some moves are more likely to be better, sometimes, depending on your opponent and his/her state of mind and past history.