1. You can buy antibiotic soap... 2. A drug company with a new antibiotic will not want resistance to it to develop (until they have a new one of course).
Then we already let people bombard bacteria with antibiotics to help them evolve, and there's a profit incentive not to do so with new antibiotics under patent protection then we already have both opposite bases covered.
Hence people popping random pills isn't going to change much...
The article that line is a link to (and that the line was extracted from) states (in the first paragraph no less): "as bright as the planet Venus".
Which considering the time frame of the original observation is as precise as you are going to get.
I'm going to take a punt that 99.9% of people get a more accurate idea from "as bright as the planet Venus" (provided they know which dot in the night sky you are referring to by that name) than "an apparent magnitude of -4.5".
It doesn't contaminate what it comes in contact with. Right this minute I have some GPL licensed stuff and some BSD licensed stuff in contact and the BSD licensed stuff it still BSD licensed. In fact I have some GPLed stuff and some random commerically licensed stuff in contact and that random commerically licensed stuff isn't GPLd because of that.
In order to legally distribute a derivative work of soemthing GPLed then yes, that derivative work must be GPLed also.
Creating a derivative work is ever so completely different than coming into contact with.
I've heard a similar argument before, that talking on the telephone requires a lot more concentration than talking to a person you can see because so much of communication is non-verbal.
Without being able to see body language and gestures communication is more difficult.
Plus of course they can't see that your about to weave between some trucks while appraching an intersection...
We've been in recession since 2001. It's easy to hide that when you remove all the things that go up in price from your inflation calculation and hence overestimate real GDP significantly.
And yes, it isn't all the current administrations fault. Reagan set it up, Bush twiddled his thumbs, Clinton fanned the flames, and Bush pulled the trigger.
However, we passed the point of no return with Bush in charge when it was obvious we were about to do so (the housing bubble, plain as day obvious in 2002 due to interests rates being set to low). That puts a large chunk of the responsibility on his shoulders - he could have allowed a normal recession to occur and fix the imbalances, but instead chose to delay and magnify it. The other three can at least argue they couldn't see what was going to happen, Bush has no such option since it was obvious at the time.
The common denominator is Alan Greenspan, but he's changed from being universally worshipped to being universally hated, so that's no fun anymore.
It's irrelevant now anyway, the US is toast economically - nothing can be done about it, since the point of no return is long gone. All they can do now is delay (and magnify - the side effect of delaying) the inevitable.
If recessions were an "accepted part of the cycle" then the government wouldn't create bubbles to avoid them, surely???
Or try reading the next two paragraphs after your quote.
And of course stallman is talking about something completely different. Company mentioned in the slashdot post seems to make its money from developing non-free software (extensions to a free software product but that's irrelevant in terms of them being free or not). Stallman is just claiming it is possible to be paid to develop free software directly.
He is clearly not claiming it is impossible to make money developing non-free software.
So exactly how does what he said have anything to do with the situation in question???
If it's "the game server is shutting down in 2 weeks" there isn't much "stuff to get done" to complain about not being able to do.
Of course they won't spend any dev time on it (it's shutting down...), but even a "the bad guys are attacking" followed by spamming big bad guys in all the usual safe places would do.
Also when you are shutting down "pleasing everyone" is completely irrelevant...
Of course I would, but I wouldn't want the legal system to be perverted to do it.
I can kill them myself, thanks all the same, if I think vengeance needs to be served. There's no need to destroy the rule of law to make me feel better.
If it was my kid, then in fact it would be even less relevant to me. Punishing someone doesn't bring my kid back. It's too late for punishing someone to act as a deterrent in my kids case.
I have the least to lose with applying principles of justice and not trying to end run around retrospective law restrictions.
It would already be too late for my kid, do why would it matter if it was a little later still?
Of course laws get used in new circumstances, but you don't just make shit up because you are morally offended by something...
On the plus side you'll be the first against the wall once the obvious outcome of trolling being a capital offense results. Silver linings and all that.
I didn't claim you couldn't burn a flag - of course in some areas it may not be wise...
I'm just claiming that Americans have their flag ingrained as something important reasonably early and hence place more importance in it than most people (not all people, mind you).
Punishing someone via the justice system, when they didn't violate a law - but did something you find morally wrong. Is exactly a police state.
From the crappy source that is wikipedia: """ A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive. """ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
Using the legal system to punish someone who didn't break the damn law is exactly "no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive".
We have a system, the legislative branch creates a law about whatever it is, then the executive enforces that law, and the judicial branch makes sure it is all done correctly.
You want to remove the legislative branch from the equation, and so remove the "law" part and be left with executive whim as to whether something is a crime or not.
Note, in this case she very well may have broken the law - I give exactly no shit about the details.
If what she did was so bad and she should be punished but she didn't break any laws then bad luck she should get away with it.
The solution is to enact laws to make whatever is so bad a punishable offence. Now if she or anyone else does it again they can be punished.
One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better.
If she's so evil she needs to be kept away fromk society, then she'll do it again and the new law can then be used. (and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state).
The words "and to the Republic for which it stands", make it clear it isn't symbolic. You are pledging allegiance to the thing the flag symbolizes explicitly separately from doing so to the flag itself.
Slashdot Mirror
So we should remove all those laws against drugs, and since we've had them for longer than proibition lasted drug usage will be almost zero anyway?
Since:
1. You can buy antibiotic soap...
2. A drug company with a new antibiotic will not want resistance to it to develop (until they have a new one of course).
Then we already let people bombard bacteria with antibiotics to help them evolve, and there's a profit incentive not to do so with new antibiotics under patent protection then we already have both opposite bases covered.
Hence people popping random pills isn't going to change much...
"as bright as" != "brighter".
And yes, I'm talking about what the article says not what Tycho said...
The article that line is a link to (and that the line was extracted from) states (in the first paragraph no less): "as bright as the planet Venus".
Which considering the time frame of the original observation is as precise as you are going to get.
I'm going to take a punt that 99.9% of people get a more accurate idea from "as bright as the planet Venus" (provided they know which dot in the night sky you are referring to by that name) than "an apparent magnitude of -4.5".
"Conservative Christians" didn't vote for the current government in the first place, so no loss there from Rudd's perspective.
Except that that's only the case if linking does in fact create a derivative work, and hence is nothing additional.
No.
It doesn't contaminate what it comes in contact with. Right this minute I have some GPL licensed stuff and some BSD licensed stuff in contact and the BSD licensed stuff it still BSD licensed. In fact I have some GPLed stuff and some random commerically licensed stuff in contact and that random commerically licensed stuff isn't GPLd because of that.
In order to legally distribute a derivative work of soemthing GPLed then yes, that derivative work must be GPLed also.
Creating a derivative work is ever so completely different than coming into contact with.
That's completely false.
The language is:
"for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution"
Which is as far from "as much you possibly can" as possible without being "at no charge".
The actual "loophole" is that the GP poster is a moron who can't read simple English and his entire claim is garbage.
Read the thing again.
Note that "one of the following" means exactly what it says and not "all of the following" as you clearly read it.
I've heard a similar argument before, that talking on the telephone requires a lot more concentration than talking to a person you can see because so much of communication is non-verbal.
Without being able to see body language and gestures communication is more difficult.
Plus of course they can't see that your about to weave between some trucks while appraching an intersection...
Sure, sure.
We've been in recession since 2001. It's easy to hide that when you remove all the things that go up in price from your inflation calculation and hence overestimate real GDP significantly.
And yes, it isn't all the current administrations fault. Reagan set it up, Bush twiddled his thumbs, Clinton fanned the flames, and Bush pulled the trigger.
However, we passed the point of no return with Bush in charge when it was obvious we were about to do so (the housing bubble, plain as day obvious in 2002 due to interests rates being set to low). That puts a large chunk of the responsibility on his shoulders - he could have allowed a normal recession to occur and fix the imbalances, but instead chose to delay and magnify it. The other three can at least argue they couldn't see what was going to happen, Bush has no such option since it was obvious at the time.
The common denominator is Alan Greenspan, but he's changed from being universally worshipped to being universally hated, so that's no fun anymore.
It's irrelevant now anyway, the US is toast economically - nothing can be done about it, since the point of no return is long gone. All they can do now is delay (and magnify - the side effect of delaying) the inevitable.
If recessions were an "accepted part of the cycle" then the government wouldn't create bubbles to avoid them, surely???
"I've not actually cracked one of these yet (saving them for a real emergency)"
Wise, wouldn't want to test things in a non-emergency situation after all.
You do have to merge them all back together at the end...
But I'm sure you can do better tonight.
I realize, slashdot..., but maybe you could glance at the article which states:
10 trillion 100-byte records
Or try reading the next two paragraphs after your quote.
And of course stallman is talking about something completely different. Company mentioned in the slashdot post seems to make its money from developing non-free software (extensions to a free software product but that's irrelevant in terms of them being free or not). Stallman is just claiming it is possible to be paid to develop free software directly.
He is clearly not claiming it is impossible to make money developing non-free software.
So exactly how does what he said have anything to do with the situation in question???
If it's "the game server is shutting down in 2 weeks" there isn't much "stuff to get done" to complain about not being able to do.
Of course they won't spend any dev time on it (it's shutting down...), but even a "the bad guys are attacking" followed by spamming big bad guys in all the usual safe places would do.
Also when you are shutting down "pleasing everyone" is completely irrelevant...
Of course I would, but I wouldn't want the legal system to be perverted to do it.
I can kill them myself, thanks all the same, if I think vengeance needs to be served. There's no need to destroy the rule of law to make me feel better.
Of course I don't support using RICO against the RIAA. I'm not retarded.
Maybe you should look up the word "and" in a dictionary.
If it was my kid, then in fact it would be even less relevant to me. Punishing someone doesn't bring my kid back. It's too late for punishing someone to act as a deterrent in my kids case.
I have the least to lose with applying principles of justice and not trying to end run around retrospective law restrictions.
It would already be too late for my kid, do why would it matter if it was a little later still?
Of course laws get used in new circumstances, but you don't just make shit up because you are morally offended by something...
On the plus side you'll be the first against the wall once the obvious outcome of trolling being a capital offense results. Silver linings and all that.
I didn't claim you couldn't burn a flag - of course in some areas it may not be wise...
I'm just claiming that Americans have their flag ingrained as something important reasonably early and hence place more importance in it than most people (not all people, mind you).
Punishing someone via the justice system, when they didn't violate a law - but did something you find morally wrong. Is exactly a police state.
From the crappy source that is wikipedia:
"""
A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
""" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
Using the legal system to punish someone who didn't break the damn law is exactly "no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive".
We have a system, the legislative branch creates a law about whatever it is, then the executive enforces that law, and the judicial branch makes sure it is all done correctly.
You want to remove the legislative branch from the equation, and so remove the "law" part and be left with executive whim as to whether something is a crime or not.
Note, in this case she very well may have broken the law - I give exactly no shit about the details.
That isn't how a fair justice system works.
If what she did was so bad and she should be punished but she didn't break any laws then bad luck she should get away with it.
The solution is to enact laws to make whatever is so bad a punishable offence. Now if she or anyone else does it again they can be punished.
One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better.
If she's so evil she needs to be kept away fromk society, then she'll do it again and the new law can then be used. (and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state).
The words "and to the Republic for which it stands", make it clear it isn't symbolic. You are pledging allegiance to the thing the flag symbolizes explicitly separately from doing so to the flag itself.
For example, apparently without a physical flag you can't pledge allegiance you your country and republic: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/10/i_pledge_allegiance_to_the_fla.html
Or at least some, you would hope reasonably intelligent, Americans seem to think so.