In philosophy, a subject in which I have specialized, we use a greek word qua frequently. Put simply, this word means, generally, "in the capacity of." I think it is fairly obvious that the author of this book qua biologist is demonstrably a crackpot. He writes on a very intensively studied branch of science, and proposes a number of theories which are blantantly contrary to well established and observed fact, on no better grounds than an active imagination. This, I would argue, is the very definition of crackpottery. Most sensible people in the modern world would call a doctor who proposed leeching as a panacea to be a crackpot for much the same reason--it is contrary to well established medical fact and commonly available evidence.
In any case, it seems quite clear to me that PZ is describing this man as being a crackpot qua developmental biologist, and not qua businessman or any other number of things he might be talented at. As such, I believe this accusation is absolutely true and utterly defensible by anybody with a rational understanding of modern science.
P.S. I would have liked to moderate this rather than reply, but none of the options seemed to adequately represent my feelings about it...
...what you think it means. Double standard that is, in reference to the author. Here's your standard: open source is good, closed source is bad. When source opens up this is good, when it closes up, this is bad. This is one standard. Please to be explaining where second standard is? Really, this article was tripe if you ask me. It accuses people of hypocrisy and double standards when that's simply patently not the case.
If you want to argue that commercial software is necessary for the industry, fine. That makes sense, and I can understand the argument, but don't try to hide it behind some ridiculous red herring argument of hypocrisy.
These students have an entire university's worth of experts just waiting for a new game to play at. Honestly, universities are one of those things you just don't mess with unless you're REAAAAALY sure of yourself.
Well, I guess that question wouldn't matter for a less invasive advertising platform, but what this seems to be proposing is currently impossible without the customer's explicit agreement and cooperation. So I'm wondering what they plan on giving the customer to make this ever remotely appealing?
To those who are complaining about this: please spare me the bullshit. Gerrymandering has been around a long time, and until we get rid of THAT nonsense, there's no reason I can think of, legal or moral, that its reasonable counter shouldn't be employed by the people being gerrymandered against.
In my experience there are very few corporations out there that are unequivocally and genuinely evil. Some like Microsoft may be a little brutish, but Monsanto puts any kind of questionable activity they do to shame. Truly an entity I can say I am ashamed is even allowed to exist in our society.
It's true. Why, just yesterday my friend told me his sister's boyfriend's cousin who lives in Morocco said he saw an entire golf course floating towards the Strait of Gibraltar. True story, I hear it happens all the time.
I'm not sure I would describe any of those storylines as "truly compelling" in the sens in which the GP poster is speaking. Deux Ex, I would say, stepped above the level of contrived garbage written for a 12-year old to more of a trashy sci-fi fan-fic level of quality. Half-life 1 and 2 had great atmosphere, but their stories were really nothing special. Half-life 1 especially was just your run of the mill save-the-world-from-aliens bit. Half-life 2, while it had its good points along the way, I found was totally ruined by an absolutely absurd deus ex machina resolution; it really ruined the whole thing for me.
But I'm going to chime in myself and ask, how is this even remotely newsworthy? OSX has been out for quite a while now, whereas Vista is a new operating system. This ridiculous excuse for reporting is spinning this as if Microsoft is somehow gaining market share, which it isn't. Now, if the combined Vista+XP were gaining share, out of what, Linux? this might be worth talking about. Worthless article, move on, nothing to see.
Well, there's also the point that companies like Microsoft generally indemnify their users from potential patent/trademark/bullshit infringement incurred while operating the software, which means that they really don't have much of a responsibility to notify you when that might in fact take place. Not so with most open source deals. Especially, now that I think of it, considering the fact that you the USER produce the actual binary most of the time with open source, meaning that you might be seen differently in a legal sense from somebody using a pre-packaged binary from a third party. Just some thoughts on the matter.
They got a court order, seem to be going through all the proper channels, aren't trying to pull any "national security" secrecy bullshit, and just seem to be doing this by the book. It's nice to see representatives of the law obey the law and actually be able to feel good about what the FBI is doing. Am I just jaded?
The level of vitriol going around in this post is remarkable. The one AC reply to you, for example, I just don't know what he's on. Objectively speaking though, I went ahead and actually read the FA, and you're pretty much spot on.
Gameplay quote:
Most of the action we saw was basic run-and gun--working your way up and down, through the buildings of the city to reach various checkpoints. We saw a fight with a mini-boss that was relatively unremarkable, but it did at least end with a fairly satisfying "boom."
Conclusion:
Killzone 2 is loud, dirty, and violently elegant. If you have a PS3, you're going to want this game. If you don't have a PS3...you might have to figure out how you're going to get one.
Um... excuse me? Yeah... I stopped being impressed by shiny things and big booms at about age 15. They say absolutely nothing to recommend this game as a particularly rewarding experience, and then conclude that you might want to buy a PS3 just to play it. WHAT?
Just out of curiosity, and this coming from a long time Windows user who has recently completely switched over to Linux, I can say I've used Photoshop extensively but have yet to spend much time in GIMP, although I intend to. At first blush however, I didn't really notice any major disparities between GIMP's feature set and Photoshop's. Would you care to point out what you feel its actual technical, rather than aesthetic, shortcomings are so I can familiarize myself better with its limits?
This seems like a job for small claims court if you actually have the time and motivation. I doubt any judge would buy that kind of bullshit when it's theoretically impossible for any PS3 sold yet to have fallen out of the manufacturer warranty. Would probably be quite handily won by you... probably be able to get court expenses and *maybe* even some punitive damages out of them for acting in such obviously bad faith.
You might look into the Mono project. Doesn't yet support all the bells and whistles that you get in Microsoft's latest.NET, but I've found for most reasonable projects you can get it running in both Linux and Windows using almost identical code. If you want to do your programming in Linux, MonoDevelop is a pretty decent tool for the job. I'll admit I haven't done much, but with the few projects I've made for myself using it the experience has been quite peasant and very Visual Studioish.
Laptop. I mean, honestly, this just looks like a small special purpose laptop. What's to differentiate it from any other extremely small laptop running Linux? The article was a little light on details about what exactly makes this a whole new class of device.
"a product (or major component thereof) of a Party that has the same or substantially the same features and functionality as a then-existing product (or major component thereof) of the other Party... and that has the same or substantially the same user interface, or implements all or substantially all of the Application Programming Interfaces of the Prior Product."
a:= a product (or major component thereof) of a Party that has the same or substantially the same features and functionality as a then-existing product (or major component thereof) of the other Party
b:= has the same or substantially the same user interface
c:= implements all or substantially all of the Application Programming Interfaces of the Prior Product
Clone Definition: a ^ b v c [a and b or c]
We will assume the standard boolean or in this case, being the inclusive form. Given all that, the definition is actually ambiguous. They could really mean (a ^ b) v c, or a ^ (b v c), given what little of the phrasing we have available to us it's hard to say. In the end, it might all depend on where the commas appear!
That's right folks, ignore the millions and millions of poor people around the world who will become refugees when the sea level rises, because North Carolinans will be able to have vegetable gardens!! And those silly Eskimos who've build their entire society around an arctic environment will now be able to enjoy the pleasures of being the world's next group of underpaid ethnic farmworkers!
Honestly, we all know life will go on. It's only the most radical who predict the end of life as we know it as a result of global warming. That, however, is totally beside the point.
The author is just committing one of the classical logical fallacies--constructing a false dichotomy (aka bifurcation)--because he knows full well that such fallacies are quite effective against uncritical readers. He serves up examples of the past where the acquisition of wealth went along what we now consider immoral, if not outright illegal, methods, and then proposes that invention is the only alternative to petty criminality. The idea many will come away with is that somehow copyright and patents are our only way out of a corrupt and criminal society. It is, of course, utter rubbish.
As a matter of fact, the author has used just about every common logical fallacy in the book in making his arguments in this piece--it's really quite shameful. Just check out such classics as: argumentum ad novitatem, argumentum ad verecundiam, dicto simpliciter, ignoratio elenchi, and everybody's favorite, the straw man, and see where he uses them. It's like a scavenger hunt, but with lies!
Yes, for some purposes they are considered people, and they are afforded the rights of people, but those rights, so far as I am aware are quite specifically delineated. Obviously, they are not afforded all the rights of people--for example the right to vote. The thing is, as the corporation is nothing more than a fictitious given substance solely by weight of law, at least as far as I am aware it has to be specifically granted rights by those laws. In other words, as far as I'm aware corporations do not enjoy any "natural" rights. Am I wrong in this? And if not, where are corporations granted the right of free speech?
That's nice. Now tell me what percentage of the actual wealth those top 5% control and we'll have maybe some actually USEFUL numbers. Last I checked, those top 5% control more than 53% of the wealth, meaning they're paying LESS than their fair share by my book.
Slashdot Mirror
In philosophy, a subject in which I have specialized, we use a greek word qua frequently. Put simply, this word means, generally, "in the capacity of." I think it is fairly obvious that the author of this book qua biologist is demonstrably a crackpot. He writes on a very intensively studied branch of science, and proposes a number of theories which are blantantly contrary to well established and observed fact, on no better grounds than an active imagination. This, I would argue, is the very definition of crackpottery. Most sensible people in the modern world would call a doctor who proposed leeching as a panacea to be a crackpot for much the same reason--it is contrary to well established medical fact and commonly available evidence.
In any case, it seems quite clear to me that PZ is describing this man as being a crackpot qua developmental biologist, and not qua businessman or any other number of things he might be talented at. As such, I believe this accusation is absolutely true and utterly defensible by anybody with a rational understanding of modern science.
P.S. I would have liked to moderate this rather than reply, but none of the options seemed to adequately represent my feelings about it...
...what you think it means. Double standard that is, in reference to the author. Here's your standard: open source is good, closed source is bad. When source opens up this is good, when it closes up, this is bad. This is one standard. Please to be explaining where second standard is? Really, this article was tripe if you ask me. It accuses people of hypocrisy and double standards when that's simply patently not the case.
If you want to argue that commercial software is necessary for the industry, fine. That makes sense, and I can understand the argument, but don't try to hide it behind some ridiculous red herring argument of hypocrisy.
These students have an entire university's worth of experts just waiting for a new game to play at. Honestly, universities are one of those things you just don't mess with unless you're REAAAAALY sure of yourself.
Well, I guess that question wouldn't matter for a less invasive advertising platform, but what this seems to be proposing is currently impossible without the customer's explicit agreement and cooperation. So I'm wondering what they plan on giving the customer to make this ever remotely appealing?
To those who are complaining about this: please spare me the bullshit. Gerrymandering has been around a long time, and until we get rid of THAT nonsense, there's no reason I can think of, legal or moral, that its reasonable counter shouldn't be employed by the people being gerrymandered against.
In my experience there are very few corporations out there that are unequivocally and genuinely evil. Some like Microsoft may be a little brutish, but Monsanto puts any kind of questionable activity they do to shame. Truly an entity I can say I am ashamed is even allowed to exist in our society.
As someone who lives and works in San Francisco, I can attest that "a crazy homeless dude did it" is a fairly sensible first guess for most problems.
It's true. Why, just yesterday my friend told me his sister's boyfriend's cousin who lives in Morocco said he saw an entire golf course floating towards the Strait of Gibraltar. True story, I hear it happens all the time.
I'm not sure I would describe any of those storylines as "truly compelling" in the sens in which the GP poster is speaking. Deux Ex, I would say, stepped above the level of contrived garbage written for a 12-year old to more of a trashy sci-fi fan-fic level of quality. Half-life 1 and 2 had great atmosphere, but their stories were really nothing special. Half-life 1 especially was just your run of the mill save-the-world-from-aliens bit. Half-life 2, while it had its good points along the way, I found was totally ruined by an absolutely absurd deus ex machina resolution; it really ruined the whole thing for me.
But I'm going to chime in myself and ask, how is this even remotely newsworthy? OSX has been out for quite a while now, whereas Vista is a new operating system. This ridiculous excuse for reporting is spinning this as if Microsoft is somehow gaining market share, which it isn't. Now, if the combined Vista+XP were gaining share, out of what, Linux? this might be worth talking about. Worthless article, move on, nothing to see.
Well, there's also the point that companies like Microsoft generally indemnify their users from potential patent/trademark/bullshit infringement incurred while operating the software, which means that they really don't have much of a responsibility to notify you when that might in fact take place. Not so with most open source deals. Especially, now that I think of it, considering the fact that you the USER produce the actual binary most of the time with open source, meaning that you might be seen differently in a legal sense from somebody using a pre-packaged binary from a third party. Just some thoughts on the matter.
How they could accurately place its completion at precisely 13%. Not 12% or 14% mind you, we are THIRTEEN percent done with this.
They got a court order, seem to be going through all the proper channels, aren't trying to pull any "national security" secrecy bullshit, and just seem to be doing this by the book. It's nice to see representatives of the law obey the law and actually be able to feel good about what the FBI is doing. Am I just jaded?
My first thought was the contents of the LCD, which in my experience is a black liquidy stuff.
The level of vitriol going around in this post is remarkable. The one AC reply to you, for example, I just don't know what he's on. Objectively speaking though, I went ahead and actually read the FA, and you're pretty much spot on.
Gameplay quote:
Conclusion:
Um... excuse me? Yeah... I stopped being impressed by shiny things and big booms at about age 15. They say absolutely nothing to recommend this game as a particularly rewarding experience, and then conclude that you might want to buy a PS3 just to play it. WHAT?
Just out of curiosity, and this coming from a long time Windows user who has recently completely switched over to Linux, I can say I've used Photoshop extensively but have yet to spend much time in GIMP, although I intend to. At first blush however, I didn't really notice any major disparities between GIMP's feature set and Photoshop's. Would you care to point out what you feel its actual technical, rather than aesthetic, shortcomings are so I can familiarize myself better with its limits?
This seems like a job for small claims court if you actually have the time and motivation. I doubt any judge would buy that kind of bullshit when it's theoretically impossible for any PS3 sold yet to have fallen out of the manufacturer warranty. Would probably be quite handily won by you... probably be able to get court expenses and *maybe* even some punitive damages out of them for acting in such obviously bad faith.
You might look into the Mono project. Doesn't yet support all the bells and whistles that you get in Microsoft's latest .NET, but I've found for most reasonable projects you can get it running in both Linux and Windows using almost identical code. If you want to do your programming in Linux, MonoDevelop is a pretty decent tool for the job. I'll admit I haven't done much, but with the few projects I've made for myself using it the experience has been quite peasant and very Visual Studioish.
Laptop. I mean, honestly, this just looks like a small special purpose laptop. What's to differentiate it from any other extremely small laptop running Linux? The article was a little light on details about what exactly makes this a whole new class of device.
a := a product (or major component thereof) of a Party that has the same or substantially the same features and functionality as a then-existing product (or major component thereof) of the other Party
b := has the same or substantially the same user interface
c := implements all or substantially all of the Application Programming Interfaces of the Prior Product
Clone Definition: a ^ b v c [a and b or c]
We will assume the standard boolean or in this case, being the inclusive form. Given all that, the definition is actually ambiguous. They could really mean (a ^ b) v c, or a ^ (b v c), given what little of the phrasing we have available to us it's hard to say. In the end, it might all depend on where the commas appear!
Honestly, we all know life will go on. It's only the most radical who predict the end of life as we know it as a result of global warming. That, however, is totally beside the point.
The author is just committing one of the classical logical fallacies--constructing a false dichotomy (aka bifurcation)--because he knows full well that such fallacies are quite effective against uncritical readers. He serves up examples of the past where the acquisition of wealth went along what we now consider immoral, if not outright illegal, methods, and then proposes that invention is the only alternative to petty criminality. The idea many will come away with is that somehow copyright and patents are our only way out of a corrupt and criminal society. It is, of course, utter rubbish.
As a matter of fact, the author has used just about every common logical fallacy in the book in making his arguments in this piece--it's really quite shameful. Just check out such classics as: argumentum ad novitatem, argumentum ad verecundiam, dicto simpliciter, ignoratio elenchi, and everybody's favorite, the straw man, and see where he uses them. It's like a scavenger hunt, but with lies!
Yes, for some purposes they are considered people, and they are afforded the rights of people, but those rights, so far as I am aware are quite specifically delineated. Obviously, they are not afforded all the rights of people--for example the right to vote. The thing is, as the corporation is nothing more than a fictitious given substance solely by weight of law, at least as far as I am aware it has to be specifically granted rights by those laws. In other words, as far as I'm aware corporations do not enjoy any "natural" rights. Am I wrong in this? And if not, where are corporations granted the right of free speech?