Well their goal isn't to advertise to you at any cost, it's to make money off of the advertising. I don't know how much they're going to get off of install media advertisements compared to Internet advertisements. I guess it sort of works for Dell / HP / etc. for Windows installs ("craplets"), but that's not quite the same thing as this proposal.
I suppose the goal could be to irritate you into paying full price, but they would have an easier time just not creating the ad-supported version than creating it and then trying to get people not to use it (that said, they didn't make it).
I'm asking whether you can back this statement up:
"Go to a class of college students in america, ask them to mark 10, 1 million, and 1 billion on a line, and 99% of them will draw 1 million closer to 1 billion. Usually a lot closer."
No, evolution is the union of both things, although "beneficial" isn't strictly necessary, and "NEW genetic information" is ill-defined.
Do you disagree that mutations happen: insertions, deletions, changes? All have been observed.
If so, we can walk down the road of those proofs. If not, what mechanism do you propose that prevents these things from producing "NEW genetic information". be sure to define "NEW genetic information".
A. "The petals of red roses are always, without fail softer than the petals of yellow roses" B. "The petals of red roses are typically/most often softer than the petals of yellow roses"
B is by far a more reasonable interpretation.
As an analogy, consider the phrase "Men have more upper body strength than women". This is true, and scientifically testable with multiple investigations agreeing on this fact. This despite the fact that some women have more upper body strength than some men, even controlling for age, weight, etc. (and especially when you don't control for those confounding factors).
That doesn't at all address the parent, you're just changing the subject.
Yes, there is a difference between spanking and beating the crap out of a kid. There's also a difference between beating the crap out of a kid and quadruple-amputating him for no sound medical reason, but that doesn't make beating the crap out of a kid okay.
Rather than speak to differences between thing X and an obviously worse thing Y, you should clarify why thing X is not a bad thing on its own merits.
The study wasn't specific to software engineering. Unless you think software engineering is a special career, or that anti-asian sentiment is a special sentiment, it implies that people of Asian descent manage to get those jobs despite a disadvantage in call backs.
That's just solipsism. The statement "BlueScreenO'Life's messages were written by a human being, and not by a confused monkey given a netbook in a zoo for the purpose of re-writing Shakespeare" is a leap of faith in exactly the same sense that "God does not exist" is a leap of faith. You could argue that maybe you have enough personal information on the net for me to find your address and track you down, but that assumes the information is not part of an elaborate deception.* And anyway the idea that there is any objective reality at all outside of my own thoughts is the same sort of leap of faith. The Occam's razor position is a reasonable default in most cases.
There's some parallel in that example to one common Young Earth Creationist Apologetics argument where dinosaur bones were placed in such a way as to give the appearance of age, but creation actually happened ~6000 years ago. That, too, is an unfalsifiable claim. But the leap to say that a being, even an omnipotent being, arranged an elaborate deception, writing in a convincing backstory for all sentient creations, is not the same as a leap to say that the world is probably substantially older than 6000 years old since all signs point to it being older than 6000 years old.*
I'm not an angry atheist. You want to believe, fine, whatever, so long as you don't actively harm people around you or your children then that's cool. People are wrong about a lot of things and often it doesn't really matter a whole lot, and entertained by all kinds of things I think are boring, and bored by things that are clearly awesome. And if you truly have no opinion, fine. But the argument that the atheist has faith in a sense comparable to the religious faith is at best an equivocation.
* I know there are YEC-ers on slashdot, that would either claim that isn't their position, or that the position is valid. If you are one and you're tempted to reply, remember the context is that I'm claiming YEC people have faith. I think that's difficult to deny.
That's a fair point. I imagine it's mostly a matter of Kinect for Windows not having nearly the install base as Kinect of XBox, so they don't want to spend even the marginal extra effort to support it.
I think some people are interpreting "news for nerds" as "only nerdy news". But I think "news for nerds" means news...for nerds. Which already encompasses the idea that technology is just an emphasis, not a limitation. And this is news, and the readers are all nerds.
Health problems is ludicrous. Wind turbines are lowering land values though is observable reality (I don't see how it would be ludicrous at all). Particularly because of the blinking lights and how they wreck the view.
It's one thing to say it's worth it; maybe it is. But it's absurd to claim it has no effect.
Absolutely worst case scenario, they price the cure at the net present value of 30 years of treatment, plus or minus the difference in the actual cost to supply the cure vs. the treatment.
Patents aren't that magical. If it came down to it, you'd fly off to Canada or somewhere where there is a compulsory licensing law for this sort of thing. Maybe that flight is expensive, but if the 20-30 year treatment is as bad as you say I guarantee insurance will pay for it in preference.
Given them all sugar pills, only put some on the diet. Now it's a blind trial. You want double-blind, you'll have to make sure they don't discuss diets -- but really a random blind trial would be great. This is not something that is particularly difficult to test.
What are you talking about? The expensive lingering treatment is the one that requires long term thinking (if it made sense upon inspection, which it doesn't). A cure would be an enormous immediate boon. That quarter would be stellar.
I basically disagree except that they missed the golden opportunity to use "decimate" instead of "discount". They decimate his losses by discounting them 10%.
Who said anything about stealing credit card numbers? You're conflating issues radically. This isn't a grand theft trial, and nobody is talking about taking root access to your PC. This is a probe into whether Google is adhering to privacy agreements.
My best guess is that you're objecting to the AC's use of the term "exploit" in the context of privacy (or maybe the term "vulnerability")? But what else do you call it if you say the hole is being used? It's a vulnerability, in the privacy field, which is being exploited.
As for whether it's a grey area, if Google submitted a patch to end this behaviour as you say, presumably they thought the behaviour was wrong. Otherwise, why did they submit the patch?
I expect this is a case where the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. But maybe the left hand was doing wrong, whether or not the right hand was doing right. So you slap the left wrist (or you don't, depending on the outcome of the probe).
Nothing is restricted under the GPL. Everything is restricted under copyright, and GPL merely chooses which restrictions to lift, and under what circumstances.
These two statements are contradictory because it had no restrictions, then it would have no ability to choose which restrictions to lift.
I think you mean that GPL has strictly fewer restrictions than "default" copyright, which in some senses always has restrictions lifted even under strictly closed, commercial uses.
Which brings you back to the original question: if it is not okay to violate GPL, why is it okay to violate copyright? For example, is there an identifiable restriction in "default" copyright which is not present in GPL copyright that can be violated with impunity (ethically if not legally)?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not?
You don't need a right to do a thing that infringes on no one's rights.
Well their goal isn't to advertise to you at any cost, it's to make money off of the advertising. I don't know how much they're going to get off of install media advertisements compared to Internet advertisements. I guess it sort of works for Dell / HP / etc. for Windows installs ("craplets"), but that's not quite the same thing as this proposal.
I suppose the goal could be to irritate you into paying full price, but they would have an easier time just not creating the ad-supported version than creating it and then trying to get people not to use it (that said, they didn't make it).
I'm asking whether you can back this statement up:
"Go to a class of college students in america, ask them to mark 10, 1 million, and 1 billion on a line, and 99% of them will draw 1 million closer to 1 billion. Usually a lot closer."
Are you sure? Is there a study?
That just doesn't seem obviously true (or false) to me. It's somewhat justifiable on a logarithmic axis too.
No, evolution is the union of both things, although "beneficial" isn't strictly necessary, and "NEW genetic information" is ill-defined.
Do you disagree that mutations happen: insertions, deletions, changes? All have been observed.
If so, we can walk down the road of those proofs. If not, what mechanism do you propose that prevents these things from producing "NEW genetic information". be sure to define "NEW genetic information".
Nonsense. The statement is ambiguous.
A. "The petals of red roses are always, without fail softer than the petals of yellow roses"
B. "The petals of red roses are typically/most often softer than the petals of yellow roses"
B is by far a more reasonable interpretation.
As an analogy, consider the phrase "Men have more upper body strength than women". This is true, and scientifically testable with multiple investigations agreeing on this fact. This despite the fact that some women have more upper body strength than some men, even controlling for age, weight, etc. (and especially when you don't control for those confounding factors).
That doesn't at all address the parent, you're just changing the subject.
Yes, there is a difference between spanking and beating the crap out of a kid. There's also a difference between beating the crap out of a kid and quadruple-amputating him for no sound medical reason, but that doesn't make beating the crap out of a kid okay.
Rather than speak to differences between thing X and an obviously worse thing Y, you should clarify why thing X is not a bad thing on its own merits.
Yeah, on Myspace people define TMSC, UMC, GDSII, SoC, and EDA. All the time.
The study wasn't specific to software engineering. Unless you think software engineering is a special career, or that anti-asian sentiment is a special sentiment, it implies that people of Asian descent manage to get those jobs despite a disadvantage in call backs.
That's just solipsism. The statement "BlueScreenO'Life's messages were written by a human being, and not by a confused monkey given a netbook in a zoo for the purpose of re-writing Shakespeare" is a leap of faith in exactly the same sense that "God does not exist" is a leap of faith. You could argue that maybe you have enough personal information on the net for me to find your address and track you down, but that assumes the information is not part of an elaborate deception.* And anyway the idea that there is any objective reality at all outside of my own thoughts is the same sort of leap of faith. The Occam's razor position is a reasonable default in most cases.
There's some parallel in that example to one common Young Earth Creationist Apologetics argument where dinosaur bones were placed in such a way as to give the appearance of age, but creation actually happened ~6000 years ago. That, too, is an unfalsifiable claim. But the leap to say that a being, even an omnipotent being, arranged an elaborate deception, writing in a convincing backstory for all sentient creations, is not the same as a leap to say that the world is probably substantially older than 6000 years old since all signs point to it being older than 6000 years old.*
I'm not an angry atheist. You want to believe, fine, whatever, so long as you don't actively harm people around you or your children then that's cool. People are wrong about a lot of things and often it doesn't really matter a whole lot, and entertained by all kinds of things I think are boring, and bored by things that are clearly awesome. And if you truly have no opinion, fine. But the argument that the atheist has faith in a sense comparable to the religious faith is at best an equivocation.
* I know there are YEC-ers on slashdot, that would either claim that isn't their position, or that the position is valid. If you are one and you're tempted to reply, remember the context is that I'm claiming YEC people have faith. I think that's difficult to deny.
That's a fair point. I imagine it's mostly a matter of Kinect for Windows not having nearly the install base as Kinect of XBox, so they don't want to spend even the marginal extra effort to support it.
I think some people are interpreting "news for nerds" as "only nerdy news". But I think "news for nerds" means news...for nerds. Which already encompasses the idea that technology is just an emphasis, not a limitation. And this is news, and the readers are all nerds.
Health problems is ludicrous. Wind turbines are lowering land values though is observable reality (I don't see how it would be ludicrous at all). Particularly because of the blinking lights and how they wreck the view.
It's one thing to say it's worth it; maybe it is. But it's absurd to claim it has no effect.
I guarantee that won't happen.
Absolutely worst case scenario, they price the cure at the net present value of 30 years of treatment, plus or minus the difference in the actual cost to supply the cure vs. the treatment.
Patents aren't that magical. If it came down to it, you'd fly off to Canada or somewhere where there is a compulsory licensing law for this sort of thing. Maybe that flight is expensive, but if the 20-30 year treatment is as bad as you say I guarantee insurance will pay for it in preference.
Given them all sugar pills, only put some on the diet. Now it's a blind trial. You want double-blind, you'll have to make sure they don't discuss diets -- but really a random blind trial would be great. This is not something that is particularly difficult to test.
What are you talking about? The expensive lingering treatment is the one that requires long term thinking (if it made sense upon inspection, which it doesn't). A cure would be an enormous immediate boon. That quarter would be stellar.
We generate new people all the time. And even cured people generate new cancers.
If the impactor is supposed to be the mass of Mars, it's not going to provide 40% of Earth's mass (Earth is almost 10 times the mass of Mars).
It just says "size" but I'm assuming it means similar in many respects to Mars, not same volume and ten times as dense.
The title of his post was "Linux" and the first line was "That's my answer". He was doing the annoying thing where the title extends into the comment.
I basically disagree except that they missed the golden opportunity to use "decimate" instead of "discount". They decimate his losses by discounting them 10%.
I'm starting to form an alternative theory about why Einstein gets more tail than you do.
I hear this a lot, eg. in terms of browser version numbers, word processor version numbers, etc.. And it always trips my "probably nonsense" filter.
Is there any evidence that consumers think that way at all?
Who said anything about stealing credit card numbers? You're conflating issues radically. This isn't a grand theft trial, and nobody is talking about taking root access to your PC. This is a probe into whether Google is adhering to privacy agreements.
My best guess is that you're objecting to the AC's use of the term "exploit" in the context of privacy (or maybe the term "vulnerability")? But what else do you call it if you say the hole is being used? It's a vulnerability, in the privacy field, which is being exploited.
As for whether it's a grey area, if Google submitted a patch to end this behaviour as you say, presumably they thought the behaviour was wrong. Otherwise, why did they submit the patch?
I expect this is a case where the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. But maybe the left hand was doing wrong, whether or not the right hand was doing right. So you slap the left wrist (or you don't, depending on the outcome of the probe).
Nothing is restricted under the GPL. Everything is restricted under copyright, and GPL merely chooses which restrictions to lift, and under what circumstances.
These two statements are contradictory because it had no restrictions, then it would have no ability to choose which restrictions to lift.
I think you mean that GPL has strictly fewer restrictions than "default" copyright, which in some senses always has restrictions lifted even under strictly closed, commercial uses.
Which brings you back to the original question: if it is not okay to violate GPL, why is it okay to violate copyright? For example, is there an identifiable restriction in "default" copyright which is not present in GPL copyright that can be violated with impunity (ethically if not legally)?