Being creationist does not mean being anti-science.
I have heard that statement so often that I am forced to the conclusion that people actually believe it. Such a statement, however, is nothing more than "newspeak." Creationism (and it's bastard offspring, "Intelligent design") is not only anti-science, it is blatantly anti-science. Those Creationists and IDers who actually know anything about science have one stratagem to propagate their ideas, as identified by William Benetta: "They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
Please, regardless of whether you are aware of these lies, or if you repeat them in earnest good faith, do not waste my time by repeating them.
Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system. I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education? Only time will tell--yet if we have not guessed correctly, the generation that deals with the "worse choice" will suffer.
No wonder you posted anon, Coward--that has got to be the stupidest supposition I've heard in quite some time.
No, I am registered Republican--though I vote based on issues and character, not solely on party line. I am also aware that McCain is the only possibility of defeating Obama in this election.
As things stand now, were the vote tomorrow, I would hold my nose and vote for McCain. That may change if Obama grows a few clues (he's well-meaning, but some of his ideas are simply daft), but considering some of Obama's economic policies, I doubt it.
As I told Drachenstern, this is not the forum for such a debate. However, I extend my offer of meeting on neutral ground to debate this issue with either or both of you.
If you don't believe me, go ask a civil war historian (not some re-enactment fella, and not your kids civics class teacher. A real Historian) what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery.
1: This is incorrect.
2: Slashdot is not the venue for this debate.
I will gladly meet with you in any neutral venue that you choose to defend statement 1 above.
Oh, sorry, you're right--Paul wants to do away with science classes (and public schools) completely! My bad--I should have realized there is a difference.
To the best of my understanding, it would only qualify as estoppel if:
* Plaintiff's counsel was actually in error regarding his statement.
* The court holds that, even though plaintiff's counsel was in error, the statement was authoritative enough to be a release of rights.
If those two conditions are true, and MGM attempted to sue someone for ripping files from a purchased CD to a hard drive, statements by MGM's counsel in MGM v. Grokster would probably qualify as estoppel on the new lawsuit.
Now, by that same token, no other rights have been surrendered. If I borrow a CD from my neighbor and rip the files to my hard drive, I have violated copyright law, and the statements made during MGM v. Grokster offer me no protection whatsoever.
Sorry this answer is so confused: estoppel can be a confusing topic even for a lawyer, of which profession I am not.:D
I just wish the candidates would follow that advice. As it stands, even at this early date, I'm left deciding who to vote against. I can't in good conscience support either candidate, but I can vote against the ones I approve of less.
No, I have to admit it was trollish (not flamebait, though--I was actually hoping for a chuckle or two). Heck, I'll gladly accept the karma burn for it.
The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. Back in 2000 McCain was a person whom I could respect--one who stood up for his principles. Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."
Not to mention that many of the "new social engineering tricks" have been used since the beginning of Usenet. Methinks net-security.org is reaching for this story.
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be).
Contrary to popular opinion, the legality of ripping files is not a given. I don't have the text in front of me, but I recall the legality being hinged on judicial interpretation of several seemingly obvious, but legally fuzzy terms (such as "home audio recording device," and whether or not said term includes computers).
I'm aware of the questions there, but I'm going with MGM v. Grokster. Plaintif's oral arguments included an explicit admission of the legality of ripping a purchased CD to one's hard drive, and copying it to a media device (two separate acts, in my view). While of course a statement made in oral arguments is not a legal opinion or ruling, I think it not unreasonable to assume permission.
Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal).
Still questionably legal. This is the (untested as far as I know) act that the RIAA is trying to get labeled as inducement or contributory infringement. The idea is that, but for Charlie making it available for Denise to download, no infringement could have occurred.
Rejected by 9th Circuit in Atlantic v. Brennan and others, though I don't know if any of them qualify as an actual ruling of law. Nor do I know if it is a binding precedent.
Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
Nope, they both have. Charlie and Denise have both infringed the reproduction and distribution rights of both the song writer and the recording artist. The RIAA has been choosing to sue only those who are making the tracks available (probably either because they think it's the cheapest way to get their message across, or because they haven't figured out a way to nail the downloaders without stirring up entrapment charges), but could go after both.
Hmmm... I can't find what specific law or provision that would actually violate--if you have a citation, I'd love to see it--but it certainly makes sense the way you explain it.
Ooh, that does make it interesting. So as long as Denise (in my example above) is not a MediaSentry employee, then the law was broken, but it cannot be tracked. If Denise is a MediaSentry employee, no law was broken.
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be). Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal). Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
Unlike some others, I don't pretend to know everything. But I do know a few things--and one of those things is that on some projects, even if you have thousands of man-hours dedicated to the current codebase, a fresh start is needed. If you don't like the fact that I express my opinion, please feel free to ignore my posts.
Re:How close are we to being able to leave out X?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There's a lot of software out there that doesn't work with the Qt library directly--but I don't know enough about programming to know if that will matter. However, Qt is owned by Trolltech, and Trolltech is in the process of being acquired by Nokia. With Qt's currently using the GPL, Nokia may (or may not) continue to use that license for future versions.
Slashdot Mirror
I have heard that statement so often that I am forced to the conclusion that people actually believe it. Such a statement, however, is nothing more than "newspeak." Creationism (and it's bastard offspring, "Intelligent design") is not only anti-science, it is blatantly anti-science. Those Creationists and IDers who actually know anything about science have one stratagem to propagate their ideas, as identified by William Benetta: "They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
Please, regardless of whether you are aware of these lies, or if you repeat them in earnest good faith, do not waste my time by repeating them.
Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system. I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education? Only time will tell--yet if we have not guessed correctly, the generation that deals with the "worse choice" will suffer.No wonder you posted anon, Coward--that has got to be the stupidest supposition I've heard in quite some time.
No, I am registered Republican--though I vote based on issues and character, not solely on party line. I am also aware that McCain is the only possibility of defeating Obama in this election.
As things stand now, were the vote tomorrow, I would hold my nose and vote for McCain. That may change if Obama grows a few clues (he's well-meaning, but some of his ideas are simply daft), but considering some of Obama's economic policies, I doubt it.
As I told Drachenstern, this is not the forum for such a debate. However, I extend my offer of meeting on neutral ground to debate this issue with either or both of you.
1: This is incorrect.
2: Slashdot is not the venue for this debate.
I will gladly meet with you in any neutral venue that you choose to defend statement 1 above.
Oh, sorry, you're right--Paul wants to do away with science classes (and public schools) completely! My bad--I should have realized there is a difference.
Ron Paul Libertarian == Bob Barr Libertarian.
"Limited government ... except when it comes to what you do in your bedroom or what you learn in science class."
I am arrogant, you insensitive clod!
"Stump" as in "to campaign." It may be purely an Americanism, or even a regionalism within the US.
To the best of my understanding, it would only qualify as estoppel if:
* Plaintiff's counsel was actually in error regarding his statement.
* The court holds that, even though plaintiff's counsel was in error, the statement was authoritative enough to be a release of rights.
If those two conditions are true, and MGM attempted to sue someone for ripping files from a purchased CD to a hard drive, statements by MGM's counsel in MGM v. Grokster would probably qualify as estoppel on the new lawsuit.
Now, by that same token, no other rights have been surrendered. If I borrow a CD from my neighbor and rip the files to my hard drive, I have violated copyright law, and the statements made during MGM v. Grokster offer me no protection whatsoever.
Sorry this answer is so confused: estoppel can be a confusing topic even for a lawyer, of which profession I am not. :D
I just wish the candidates would follow that advice. As it stands, even at this early date, I'm left deciding who to vote against. I can't in good conscience support either candidate, but I can vote against the ones I approve of less.
Start here and read until enlightened.
No, I have to admit it was trollish (not flamebait, though--I was actually hoping for a chuckle or two). Heck, I'll gladly accept the karma burn for it.
The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. Back in 2000 McCain was a person whom I could respect--one who stood up for his principles. Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."
I think not. The old fart can go stump for himself.
Not to mention that many of the "new social engineering tricks" have been used since the beginning of Usenet. Methinks net-security.org is reaching for this story.
GP is listing the rights of the copyright owner, rather than explicitly listing what it would be illegal to do.
And copying would violate provision (1) of that list. Thanks for the correction. :)
[0] Only one (Capitol v. Thomas), and that's come under severe criticism (Atlantic v. Brennan, among others).
[1] Because they're tired from all the encryption and decryption.
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be).
Contrary to popular opinion, the legality of ripping files is not a given. I don't have the text in front of me, but I recall the legality being hinged on judicial interpretation of several seemingly obvious, but legally fuzzy terms (such as "home audio recording device," and whether or not said term includes computers).
I'm aware of the questions there, but I'm going with MGM v. Grokster. Plaintif's oral arguments included an explicit admission of the legality of ripping a purchased CD to one's hard drive, and copying it to a media device (two separate acts, in my view). While of course a statement made in oral arguments is not a legal opinion or ruling, I think it not unreasonable to assume permission.
Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal).Still questionably legal. This is the (untested as far as I know) act that the RIAA is trying to get labeled as inducement or contributory infringement. The idea is that, but for Charlie making it available for Denise to download, no infringement could have occurred.
Rejected by 9th Circuit in Atlantic v. Brennan and others, though I don't know if any of them qualify as an actual ruling of law. Nor do I know if it is a binding precedent.
Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.Nope, they both have. Charlie and Denise have both infringed the reproduction and distribution rights of both the song writer and the recording artist. The RIAA has been choosing to sue only those who are making the tracks available (probably either because they think it's the cheapest way to get their message across, or because they haven't figured out a way to nail the downloaders without stirring up entrapment charges), but could go after both.
Hmmm ... I can't find what specific law or provision that would actually violate--if you have a citation, I'd love to see it--but it certainly makes sense the way you explain it.
Ooh, that does make it interesting. So as long as Denise (in my example above) is not a MediaSentry employee, then the law was broken, but it cannot be tracked. If Denise is a MediaSentry employee, no law was broken.
I think I just had a geek legal-gasm.
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be). Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal). Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
Of course, all this means is that they will seek another legal tack. Watch out for MediaSentry downloading files to establish "distribution."
First it got demoted, then given a brand new (and largely meaningless) title. I expect Pluto to get a pink slip any day now.
Unlike some others, I don't pretend to know everything. But I do know a few things--and one of those things is that on some projects, even if you have thousands of man-hours dedicated to the current codebase, a fresh start is needed. If you don't like the fact that I express my opinion, please feel free to ignore my posts.
There's a lot of software out there that doesn't work with the Qt library directly--but I don't know enough about programming to know if that will matter. However, Qt is owned by Trolltech, and Trolltech is in the process of being acquired by Nokia. With Qt's currently using the GPL, Nokia may (or may not) continue to use that license for future versions.
Splendid! When will you start?