First of all, there is a finite supply of fossil fuels on the planet. So it's not a question of if we will run out, but when. Second, developing hydrogen-based energy systems is a good idea even if fossil fuels aren't going to run out soon. Hydrogen systems are cleaner (yes, even if the hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels, because the messy extraction steps can be done in a centralized location where there is room and money to make sure the pollutants don't escape into the environment) and more flexible (there are many ways to make hydrogen, but only one way to obtain fossil fuels).
What's amazing to me is how many people acknowledge all the flaws in the current energy system, and nevertheless refuse to think seriously about ways to improve it. Being short-sighted is their right, of course, but it's the people (and countries) whose imaginations haven't been shackled to the status quo that will make the world a better place, and get rich in the process.
Now.. I don't want to believe all these people are that stupid.. it's just a fundamental lack of understanding about how a computer works
The whole point behind Windows is to make a computer usable and useful to someone who doesn't understand how a computer works. If the user needs to understand how the computer works just to read his email, he might as well learn to use the command line for everything. Such a requirement is simply too much to ask of the average user.
Also, keep in mind that it isn't enough for the user to understand how a computer works. The user could know everything about the computer, and it wouldn't help him, because he still wouldn't know which of his helper/viewer apps contain security holes which can be exploited by email attachments -- he can't know, because he doesn't have the source code to them.
The only conclusion is: if attachments cannot be made safe, then they should not be made easy to open. The best solution would be to run attachments in some sort of 'sandbox' (Java style) so that they literally cannot do any damage to the machine. The next best (and still not very good) solution would be to put a big fat "WARNING -- VIRUS HAZARD" notice up whenever the user tries to open an attachment; one that is very hard to get past without reading it.
People don't want to think of embryos as human because it's too horrible
This all leads to the more basic question, what does it mean to be a human being?
This whole argument is rediculous. All of you know when life begins and you choose to not accept it because to accept it would mean accepting all the horrible realities of our society. Grow up and understand how life works
But it isn't necessarily immoral to destroy life to further our own ends... if you don't believe me, ask the chicken sandwich I had for lunch. What is important is when "humanity" begins. Just because a blastocyst is alive doesn't mean it is a human being.
But religious people define it as having a soul -- and therefore, even that just-fertilized egg qualifies as human.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know that that just-fertilized egg has a soul? Is there some test that one can use to determine whether or not a soul is present?
Unless I read it wrong (which is possible; it wasn't exactly in plain english), the court held that human life does not begin at a certain point but gradually develops through the trimesters. That sounds kinda wierd, I mean, is it alive or not?
Perhaps they meant that the fetus' status as a human being gradually developes over the course of the trimesters. If so, then I have to agree -- much of the abortion debate springs from the invalid assumption that a fetus is either human or it isn't. Nice in theory, but in the real world it doesn't work like that. There is a gradually build-up of humanity, not a sudden light-switch flip at any one particular point.
(flamebait) of course when most of the population still believes in 'souls' and other such fairy tales, the above is a hard point to get across. (/flamebait)
is it possible for there to be any kind of media without advertising?
It is possible, if the media is cheap enough to produce that advertising isn't necessary to fund it, or if the producer can convince their audience to fund them directly. This is already happening with web sites like Slashdot and Salon, FWIW.
In short, you can be talked into liking and desiring the most unlikely of things through sheer repetition, [...]... adults can be convinced of anything, given enough time.
They are looking at open source as "free beer" and saying that is against the american way, and undermines the free market economy that we have so carefully built up.
I find it hard to believe that corporate welfare is the American way (guess that means I'm not cynical enough yet). I was under the impression that capitalism was the American way, and the primary beneficial effect of capitalism was to deliver the best quality product at the lowest possible price. Given that, it seems to me that a bug-free product, available for free, is a desirable outcome.
Should photocopiers be banned because they make it easier to forge written documents? No, and neither should this. People are just going to have to get used to the fact that forging video is possible.
Assuming the majority of that $1 went to the musicians.
One problem: Which musicians? The fair way would be to track what people are downloading, and dole out the money proportionally based on that, but trying to track everybody's downloads opens up several cans of worms...
Maybe I'm just being dense, but isn't it a little difficult for a stranger to neglect a child? Seeing as how they were never responsible for the child's welfare in the first place, and all...
But picture this-- a virus that takes your picture, records you for a minute, compresses into.mp3, then sends the sound and a snapshot as an email attachment to the next person...
Why not make it interesting? Modify that virus so that it detects when the user is surfing lots of pr0n sites, waits 5 minutes, then captures a short video clip from the user's webcam and emails that snippet to everyone in the user's address book...
At the risk of stating the obvious, if you value your privacy, you should probably have your web cam covered and your microphone unplugged whenever you aren't using them. It wouldn't be hard to write a virus/trojan/etc that activates them and eavesdrops without your being aware of it -- flash or no flash. The only way to be sure that doesn't happen is to physically disable the sensors.
About the only valid complaint against the GPL is "what's to stop some meanie from saying a project I write six months after I finish my GPL project should be covered by the GPL because its 'derivitive', and thus dragging me into court?"
First off, anything code that you hold the copyright to is yours, even if you released it under the GPL. Since you hold the copyright, you are free to use it (your code) any way you like, and need not follow the terms of the GPL license.
As far as whether a project is 'derivative', it comes down to whether or not any of the GPL'd code exists in the project's souce code. If the code isn't there, but the same ideas are... no problem. GPL covers code, not ideas.
Maybe it's because I just got back from the movies, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this was a guy in a green mask flying around on it, cackling wildly and throwing fire extinguisher balls at people.
Yes, the GPL grants permissions, but it also takes away rights, such as the right to first sale of binary-only copies.
Hmm. If you are using someone else's code under the GPL, then you never had a right to sell their code in the first place. So I don't see how the GPL takes anything away from you.
People don't like reading text. Also, it's much easier to learn based on a few concrete examples, then by trying to interpret abstract rules. So your primary mode of explanation should be a Flash animation, complete with voice overs and little cartoon people acting out short 'morality plays' showing examples of what they may or may not do.
this is splitting water; you can do this at home (not that I recommend this!) by taking the two leads from a power supply and dumping them at opposite ends of a glass of water. The bubbles you see (just before the explosion) are hydrogen and oxygen gas.
Oh dear... so one can create a bomb using just a glass of water, an electrical wire, a match, and a power outlet? Just wait till the next True Believer does this in the airplane lavatory....:^(
That would work, except for a the little problem of thermodynamics
If your thinking of the 2nd law, that only applies to closed systems. Since this system is getting a continuous supply of fresh waste material (read: fuel) from elsewhere, this is not a closed system.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the time has come to reconsider whether sharing music ought to be labelled as a crime.
What's amazing to me is how many people acknowledge all the flaws in the current energy system, and nevertheless refuse to think seriously about ways to improve it. Being short-sighted is their right, of course, but it's the people (and countries) whose imaginations haven't been shackled to the status quo that will make the world a better place, and get rich in the process.
The whole point behind Windows is to make a computer usable and useful to someone who doesn't understand how a computer works. If the user needs to understand how the computer works just to read his email, he might as well learn to use the command line for everything. Such a requirement is simply too much to ask of the average user.
Also, keep in mind that it isn't enough for the user to understand how a computer works. The user could know everything about the computer, and it wouldn't help him, because he still wouldn't know which of his helper/viewer apps contain security holes which can be exploited by email attachments -- he can't know, because he doesn't have the source code to them.
The only conclusion is: if attachments cannot be made safe, then they should not be made easy to open. The best solution would be to run attachments in some sort of 'sandbox' (Java style) so that they literally cannot do any damage to the machine. The next best (and still not very good) solution would be to put a big fat "WARNING -- VIRUS HAZARD" notice up whenever the user tries to open an attachment; one that is very hard to get past without reading it.
Look at it this way. For every person that decides to relocate to Mars, that's one less person putting pressure on Earth.
This all leads to the more basic question, what does it mean to be a human being?
This whole argument is rediculous. All of you know when life begins and you choose to not accept it because to accept it would mean accepting all the horrible realities of our society. Grow up and understand how life works
But it isn't necessarily immoral to destroy life to further our own ends... if you don't believe me, ask the chicken sandwich I had for lunch. What is important is when "humanity" begins. Just because a blastocyst is alive doesn't mean it is a human being.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know that that just-fertilized egg has a soul? Is there some test that one can use to determine whether or not a soul is present?
Perhaps they meant that the fetus' status as a human being gradually developes over the course of the trimesters. If so, then I have to agree -- much of the abortion debate springs from the invalid assumption that a fetus is either human or it isn't. Nice in theory, but in the real world it doesn't work like that. There is a gradually build-up of humanity, not a sudden light-switch flip at any one particular point.
(flamebait) of course when most of the population still believes in 'souls' and other such fairy tales, the above is a hard point to get across. (/flamebait)
It is possible, if the media is cheap enough to produce that advertising isn't necessary to fund it, or if the producer can convince their audience to fund them directly. This is already happening with web sites like Slashdot and Salon, FWIW.
"Bingo! I'm Bingo! Bingo the Clown-o!"
I find it hard to believe that corporate welfare is the American way (guess that means I'm not cynical enough yet). I was under the impression that capitalism was the American way, and the primary beneficial effect of capitalism was to deliver the best quality product at the lowest possible price. Given that, it seems to me that a bug-free product, available for free, is a desirable outcome.
That's h, j, k, & l to you, buddy. 'i' is used to enter insert mode.
Fetuses are not children.
Should photocopiers be banned because they make it easier to forge written documents? No, and neither should this. People are just going to have to get used to the fact that forging video is possible.
Kazaa wouldn't pay the fee, ISPs would. Presumably you would see an extra $1 fee passed on to you on your monthly ISP bill.
One problem: Which musicians? The fair way would be to track what people are downloading, and dole out the money proportionally based on that, but trying to track everybody's downloads opens up several cans of worms...
Maybe I'm just being dense, but isn't it a little difficult for a stranger to neglect a child?
Seeing as how they were never responsible for the child's welfare in the first place, and all...
5 points for AtheOS, and 15 for BeOS? Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Why not make it interesting? Modify that virus so that it detects when the user is surfing lots of pr0n sites, waits 5 minutes, then captures a short video clip from the user's webcam and emails that snippet to everyone in the user's address book...
(evil grin)
At the risk of stating the obvious, if you value your privacy, you should probably have your web cam covered and your microphone unplugged whenever you aren't using them. It wouldn't be hard to write a virus/trojan/etc that activates them and eavesdrops without your being aware of it -- flash or no flash. The only way to be sure that doesn't happen is to physically disable the sensors.
First off, anything code that you hold the copyright to is yours, even if you released it under the GPL. Since you hold the copyright, you are free to use it (your code) any way you like, and need not follow the terms of the GPL license.
As far as whether a project is 'derivative', it comes down to whether or not any of the GPL'd code exists in the project's souce code. If the code isn't there, but the same ideas are... no problem. GPL covers code, not ideas.
Maybe it's because I just got back from the movies, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this was a guy in a green mask flying around on it, cackling wildly and throwing fire extinguisher balls at people.
Hmm. If you are using someone else's code under the GPL, then you never had a right to sell their code in the first place. So I don't see how the GPL takes anything away from you.
Yes, dammit, I'm serious.
Oh dear... so one can create a bomb using just a glass of water, an electrical wire, a match, and a power outlet? Just wait till the next True Believer does this in the airplane lavatory....
If your thinking of the 2nd law, that only applies to closed systems. Since this system is getting a continuous supply of fresh waste material (read: fuel) from elsewhere, this is not a closed system.