The N9 sold reasonably well but I suspect that Nokia could not have supported it alongside ramping up Windows Phone
That just proves the Meego supporters' point. The problem was not the OS, it was the lack of commitment.
and by then Android was a bandwagon that everyone was getting on to.
But the other nice thing about Meego is that, being a Linux platform, you can run Android apps with a compatibility layer, so Nokia could have had a different platform while letting developers sell adapted Android apps on its store.
A pirate (self-declared or otherwise) can take my story, dump it on The Priate Bay, and suddenly there's a smaller market of people who will pay me for my work.
Note: that's a one time cost per platform, not compiled each page load like your "web apps". Native code saves electricity, and is thus more green than web apps.
Native applications are not the same as native code. You can write "web apps" in native code just fine, see e.g. Wt or Go.
I'm pretty sure that a capitalist company like Google isn't offering free recursive DNS (...) just to 'speed up browsing'
Why not? They spend a lot of money keeping Search as fast as possible, because they know that requests above a certain threshold lead people to search less, meaning less ad impressions, meaning less revenue. So what's so implausible about spending some more money on a few DNS servers?
And the data from a DNS server is almost useless; just the domain (not even full URL) and the IP, which often is of some router in front of dozens or hundreds of clients. Considering that a huge percentage of websites out there have some kind of JS code from them (e.g. Analytics, AdSense, etc), it hardly seems worth it to mess their data with such noise.
If you don't have a belief in god(s), you're just as atheist as I am. Atheism and agnosticism aren't two incompatible positions, they're in two different axis. (A)gnosticism refers to the knowledge, while (A)theism refers to the belief.
How will you know the code shown is the one that actually gets executed?
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
Agnosticism is not a religion because a person professing it is simply claiming that they don't know if god exists or not.
Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god
No. Agnosticism is related to whether we can or not have knowledge of god's existence. You can believe in god without professing knowledge about its existence (it's called faith), and then you're an agnostic theist.
You can, on the other hand, just simply not believe in god, but not claim you know it exists. Those are the agnostic atheists.
They're related but not different values on the same scale.
The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.
If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist â" an agnostic-atheist â" an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...
Yes, but there are many atheists who don't have that belief, and there can be some theists who do (some religions don't consider their deities to be inscrutable like the Abrahamic ones). It's just a belief system that is often - for obvious reasons - correlated with atheism.
An atheist is a not(theist); someone who not(believes in deities). The person may or may not be religious, but atheism itself is not a religion, since it contains no belief system.
Agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. The person may or may not be atheist and/or religious.
They are treating the field on religion with the importance they feel it deserves. Strong convictions in this matter are for people who actually care, like theists and petty anti-theists. For the rest of us, it's no different than asking our favorite color of socks.
They didn't remove it just for the sake of cleaning up old code. From the commit log:
This tree removes ancient-386-CPUs support (...) which complexity has plagued us with extra work whenever we wanted to change SMP primitives, for years.
- he may say whatever he likes, that's not part of the Constitution, it's not law.
Your statement talked about their intent, not the law. This is a complete non-sequitur.
However again, nowhere in the Amendments, Bill of Rights does it state anything about rights being guaranteed to be respected, protected, even afforded by one individual to another. That's not what rights are about.
No, that's not what the Constitution is about. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to define those rights or what to do about them. That in no way implies that those rights don't exist.
You say, it's not in the Constitution, therefore it's not the law. First, that's not true; there's more law than the Constitution. Secondly, and again, the fact that it isn't in neither the Constitution or the rest of the law doesn't mean they don't exist, or more appropriately, that the Founders didn't believe in their existence. Rights are concepts, not laws.
More specifically, stating that individuals can't abridge the free speech of others would be redundant, unlike the government, they can't make laws or arrest people; freedom of speech is implicit.
That's all we need to know, so where it comes to Jefferson and his other ideas, they are not in the Constitution. His ideas on the law and rights are in the Constitution as they are written.
That's ridiculous. The Constitution is a piece of law with a specific purpose, it's not intended to contain a whole treaty on rights and law.
That's it, there is absolutely nothing that supports your wild claim, it is nonsense.
Of course not. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to define those rights.
Your medium is your private property, you have full rights to your private property. A company that is not transmitting some message over THEIR private property is not in violation of your private property in any way.
Oh, my fucking... I NEVER said otherwise. But where does those fucking "full rights to your private property" come from? They're not in the Constitution! You're contradicting yourself!
Freedom of speech, which I NEVER said to include being forced to provide your own property to others, comes implicitly from those rights to property. Which are not in the Constitution, and yet they exist!
Their intent was not to establish that any one person has rights that any other person must protect or must in fact recognise.
Jefferson clearly says "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another". Your statement directly contradicts this quote.
The intent was to ensure that the government cannot step over the rights, because that is the only time when even the concept of 'right' itself has any meaning. Outside of the relationship between the collective and an individual the concept of a 'right' has no meaning.
Then the Founders created the government to defend the people from the government itself, which is clearly nonsensical.
Just tell me this: why have the Founders created the government in the first place?
Again, you see, the Constitution is not protecting your right of free speech from me not providing you with some medium, through which your speech can be transmitted, in the sense that I am another individual.
Of course not, there's no right to having a medium. But it is the Government's responsibility - in fact, whole purpose of existence - to ensure that I, as an individual, can't prevent you from using your own medium to transmit that speech. And it's the Constitution's job to make sure that the Government doesn't violate others' rights in the process.
The concept of 'right' only means that within the very narrow context of a relationship between the individual and the collective (OR the government in general, maybe it's a monarchy, it doesn't have to be the collective, anything that acts as a government), that within that context the individual has implicit protections against abuse.
Again, that clearly goes against what Jefferson wrote. "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another" says nothing about government or collective. No man, singular.
Does this mean that the concept of 'right' applies to relations between 2 individuals? No, only criminal and contract laws apply basically when it comes to protections that are supposed to be extended by the criminal and civil justice system, but there is also another way for people to coexist, it's a general agreement upon things that is not backed by anything except public opinion or some form of morality.
Was there ever such thing as a 'right' of one individual with relation to another? No, there was never such a thing on this planet yet, the only relations that exist between individuals are based either on some form of personal private agreement, or when sides disagree (or are violent to each other), then criminal and contract laws can apply.
Again, it's a valid opinion, but it's not what the Founders wrote. They clearly said we were endowed by the Creator with such rights.
I disagree. The Founders created the government for the sole purpose of defending those inherit rights:
- you do not disagree on this with me, I agree with you, what you are missing is the fact that the purpose of defending the inherit right is not from other individuals but from the tyranny of the government
Are you seriously claiming that the Founders created the government to protect people from the government?
The rights of an individual are recognised to exist (and to be self-evident) by the Founders of US Republic for the sole purpose that they cannot be abolished by the rule of any tyranny that may ensue once the Republic is established. The tyranny is in the power, the power must be contained by the Law, the Law is the Constitution, which prevents the government from doing anything it is not authorised to do (well, supposed to prevent, we know how it went once the first 124 years of the Republic passed).
Then why create a government at all? They could have just written a Constitution banning any
Slashdot Mirror
The N9 sold reasonably well but I suspect that Nokia could not have supported it alongside ramping up Windows Phone
That just proves the Meego supporters' point. The problem was not the OS, it was the lack of commitment.
and by then Android was a bandwagon that everyone was getting on to.
But the other nice thing about Meego is that, being a Linux platform, you can run Android apps with a compatibility layer, so Nokia could have had a different platform while letting developers sell adapted Android apps on its store.
The hard drives are decent, too.
A pirate (self-declared or otherwise) can take my story, dump it on The Priate Bay, and suddenly there's a smaller market of people who will pay me for my work.
Paulo Coelho, who sells more books than almost anyone else, knows that's not true-
The US didn't sign the Moon Treaty, what it defines is irrelevant to the issue.
Same as on Earth. You get property on a piece of land and on a zone X kilometers above and Y kilometers below it.
Empty space doesn't need property rights.
We're talking about actual, physical matter here. Scarcity is a natural property of the system.
And we have thousands of years of experience dealing with such problems. It's not like property is a recent concept.
That depends on the JavaScript VM; some cache the generated machine code (even across different websites).
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1096907/do-browsers-parse-javascript-on-every-page-load?lq=1
Can't a man have his fetishes?
Note: that's a one time cost per platform, not compiled each page load like your "web apps". Native code saves electricity, and is thus more green than web apps.
Native applications are not the same as native code. You can write "web apps" in native code just fine, see e.g. Wt or Go.
I'm pretty sure that a capitalist company like Google isn't offering free recursive DNS (...) just to 'speed up browsing'
Why not? They spend a lot of money keeping Search as fast as possible, because they know that requests above a certain threshold lead people to search less, meaning less ad impressions, meaning less revenue. So what's so implausible about spending some more money on a few DNS servers?
And the data from a DNS server is almost useless; just the domain (not even full URL) and the IP, which often is of some router in front of dozens or hundreds of clients. Considering that a huge percentage of websites out there have some kind of JS code from them (e.g. Analytics, AdSense, etc), it hardly seems worth it to mess their data with such noise.
If it does much beyond reading books, it's no longer an e-reader; it's a tablet with an e-ink display.
forcing everyone to use
How so? I have a Google account, but I don't have a G+ account.
If you don't have a belief in god(s), you're just as atheist as I am. Atheism and agnosticism aren't two incompatible positions, they're in two different axis. (A)gnosticism refers to the knowledge, while (A)theism refers to the belief.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Personally, I think the only really rational position is Ignosticism, but I'm an agnostic atheist for any definitions of god(s) I've been exposed to.
How will you know the code shown is the one that actually gets executed?
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
The Mars rovers are just fairly dumb tools for a large team of humans who can actually make sense of the data.
Atheism IS the belief system there is not god. Otherwise you would be agnostic.
False dilemma: one can be both.
Agnosticism is not a religion because a person professing it is simply claiming that they don't know if god exists or not.
Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god
No. Agnosticism is related to whether we can or not have knowledge of god's existence. You can believe in god without professing knowledge about its existence (it's called faith), and then you're an agnostic theist.
You can, on the other hand, just simply not believe in god, but not claim you know it exists. Those are the agnostic atheists.
They're related but not different values on the same scale.
The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.
If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist â" an agnostic-atheist â" an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...
No. People who don't hold any proposition regarding the existence of god to be true are still atheists.
Yes, but there are many atheists who don't have that belief, and there can be some theists who do (some religions don't consider their deities to be inscrutable like the Abrahamic ones). It's just a belief system that is often - for obvious reasons - correlated with atheism.
An atheist is a not(theist); someone who not(believes in deities). The person may or may not be religious, but atheism itself is not a religion, since it contains no belief system.
Agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. The person may or may not be atheist and/or religious.
They are treating the field on religion with the importance they feel it deserves. Strong convictions in this matter are for people who actually care, like theists and petty anti-theists. For the rest of us, it's no different than asking our favorite color of socks.
Atheist and agnostic are not religions.
They didn't remove it just for the sake of cleaning up old code. From the commit log:
This tree removes ancient-386-CPUs support (...) which complexity has plagued us with extra work whenever we wanted to change SMP primitives, for years.
- he may say whatever he likes, that's not part of the Constitution, it's not law.
Your statement talked about their intent, not the law. This is a complete non-sequitur.
However again, nowhere in the Amendments, Bill of Rights does it state anything about rights being guaranteed to be respected, protected, even afforded by one individual to another. That's not what rights are about.
No, that's not what the Constitution is about. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to define those rights or what to do about them. That in no way implies that those rights don't exist.
You say, it's not in the Constitution, therefore it's not the law. First, that's not true; there's more law than the Constitution. Secondly, and again, the fact that it isn't in neither the Constitution or the rest of the law doesn't mean they don't exist, or more appropriately, that the Founders didn't believe in their existence. Rights are concepts, not laws.
More specifically, stating that individuals can't abridge the free speech of others would be redundant, unlike the government, they can't make laws or arrest people; freedom of speech is implicit.
That's all we need to know, so where it comes to Jefferson and his other ideas, they are not in the Constitution. His ideas on the law and rights are in the Constitution as they are written.
That's ridiculous. The Constitution is a piece of law with a specific purpose, it's not intended to contain a whole treaty on rights and law.
That's it, there is absolutely nothing that supports your wild claim, it is nonsense.
Of course not. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to define those rights.
Your medium is your private property, you have full rights to your private property. A company that is not transmitting some message over THEIR private property is not in violation of your private property in any way.
Oh, my fucking... I NEVER said otherwise. But where does those fucking "full rights to your private property" come from? They're not in the Constitution! You're contradicting yourself!
Freedom of speech, which I NEVER said to include being forced to provide your own property to others, comes implicitly from those rights to property. Which are not in the Constitution, and yet they exist!
Their intent was not to establish that any one person has rights that any other person must protect or must in fact recognise.
Jefferson clearly says "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another". Your statement directly contradicts this quote.
The intent was to ensure that the government cannot step over the rights, because that is the only time when even the concept of 'right' itself has any meaning. Outside of the relationship between the collective and an individual the concept of a 'right' has no meaning.
Then the Founders created the government to defend the people from the government itself, which is clearly nonsensical.
Just tell me this: why have the Founders created the government in the first place?
Again, you see, the Constitution is not protecting your right of free speech from me not providing you with some medium, through which your speech can be transmitted, in the sense that I am another individual.
Of course not, there's no right to having a medium. But it is the Government's responsibility - in fact, whole purpose of existence - to ensure that I, as an individual, can't prevent you from using your own medium to transmit that speech. And it's the Constitution's job to make sure that the Government doesn't violate others' rights in the process.
The concept of 'right' only means that within the very narrow context of a relationship between the individual and the collective (OR the government in general, maybe it's a monarchy, it doesn't have to be the collective, anything that acts as a government), that within that context the individual has implicit protections against abuse.
Again, that clearly goes against what Jefferson wrote. "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another" says nothing about government or collective. No man, singular.
Does this mean that the concept of 'right' applies to relations between 2 individuals? No, only criminal and contract laws apply basically when it comes to protections that are supposed to be extended by the criminal and civil justice system, but there is also another way for people to coexist, it's a general agreement upon things that is not backed by anything except public opinion or some form of morality.
Was there ever such thing as a 'right' of one individual with relation to another? No, there was never such a thing on this planet yet, the only relations that exist between individuals are based either on some form of personal private agreement, or when sides disagree (or are violent to each other), then criminal and contract laws can apply.
Again, it's a valid opinion, but it's not what the Founders wrote. They clearly said we were endowed by the Creator with such rights.
I disagree. The Founders created the government for the sole purpose of defending those inherit rights:
- you do not disagree on this with me, I agree with you, what you are missing is the fact that the purpose of defending the inherit right is not from other individuals but from the tyranny of the government
Are you seriously claiming that the Founders created the government to protect people from the government?
The rights of an individual are recognised to exist (and to be self-evident) by the Founders of US Republic for the sole purpose that they cannot be abolished by the rule of any tyranny that may ensue once the Republic is established. The tyranny is in the power, the power must be contained by the Law, the Law is the Constitution, which prevents the government from doing anything it is not authorised to do (well, supposed to prevent, we know how it went once the first 124 years of the Republic passed).
Then why create a government at all? They could have just written a Constitution banning any