That power-consuming proprietary product that will be superseded by HTML 5? Websites relying on Flash aren't powered by them but drained by them.
Remember the target audience for the ipad is idiots. Idiots don't care about technical arguments like that, however true they may be. Idiots want to surf youporn and play flash games on the web. Once they realize that their favorite sites don't work anymore, they won't be happy.
People's daily moods do affect their movie ratings, and the winning algorithms account for that with parameters that vary by person and day. You can read about it in the winners' algorithm description.
Re:Using a monopoly to destroy competing technolog
on
Wikipedia To Add Video
·
· Score: 1
unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?
That's indeed one of the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, it's in their charter. They are a 100% open source shop. After all, it's a "free encyclopedia", and the word "free" has many senses, all of which apply here.
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.
Maybe not innately evil, but certainly innately amoral. By law, a corporation may only perform actions that directly or indirectly increase profits. It cannot do things just because they are "right" or "good", it must always maximize profits, using all legally available means. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.
In their security alert, Adobe urges people to upgrade from Adobe Reader 9.1.0 to 9.1.1. If you install Reader from their main download site, they still give you 9.1.0. The 9.1.1 update is available only if you follow the links at the bottom of the security alert. Insecurity through obscurity!
Lamarck is one of those guys who's name is generally synonymous with bad science (he's about as villified as Darwin is deified).
Let's not forget that Darwin himself believed in Lamarckism; genetics wasn't known at the time.
That being said, the article is rather short in one important area: a suggested mechanism for this sort of inheritance. Without that, it's bound to be mired in controversy for some time.
The whole phenomenon isn't that new; it's called epigenetics and is transmitted most likely by the methylation pattern of the DNA, histone modification, and RNA interference. It's not stable and doesn't last beyond a few generations though, so it won't give a new mechanism for natural selection.
Let's make the simplifying assumptions that 1) everybody dies at age 80, 2) there are just as many women as men, 3) women start to marry at age 20 while men start to marry at age 60. Then polygamy works and every man can have two wives, without exception. This has nothing to do with "the sex ratio favoring women". It has to do with the fact that men stay married only 20 years, while women stay married for 40 years.
If you really came up with that idea on your own, then you are a genius. That idea is usually attributed to Wheeler. He told his student Feynman about it, who immediately shot it down: if it were true, we'd see just as many electrons as positrons, but we don't. See Feynman's Nobel lecture.
The high temperature and particle speed in the accretion disc ionize the particles.
Sure, but now you have positive and negative charges, rotating independently, and the generated magnetic fields should cancel each other. Or do they rotate at different speeds?
I can see where something like Wikipedia would attract people with a particular combination of idealism and naivete who gave money and are now disappointed and complaining loudly.
Disappointed about what? That the foundation declined to reimburse the founder (who doesn't draw a salary) when he submitted a $1,300 dinner bill as an expense?
I run a non-profit. [...] But I guess I must just deal with ethical people
I hope you are ethical enough not to draw a salary from your non-profit, like Jimbo Wales. He only gets his traveling expenses reimbursed from the foundation (and the $1,300 dinner bill was rejected); he basically lives off speaker's fees and his Wikia salary.
Fairness is nothing but a myth; life has never been fair and it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt to create it.
I disagree very much with that sentiment. I'm a college teacher. People with your opinion get an automatic F in all my classes. You asked for it, don't whine that it ain't fair.
The core point of his first article seems to be: whenever you use a CC-licensed photo, you cannot be sure that it was actually CC-licensed by the true copyright holder; maybe a kid stole it from some website and uploaded it to Flickr under CC.
That's a valid concern. Except it applies to all licensing, not just to CC.
Why would the kid upload it to Flickr under CC? Wouldn't it make much more sense to sell the stolen photo to a stock photo agency, claiming that he owns the copyright and that all model releases were on file? If you buy a photo from an agency, you always run the risk that the true copyright owner will later show up and sue you. Of course then you could try to sue the agency, and they would helpfully direct you to the kid who started it all. It doesn't matter, you're still liable.
Even though the open-source movement has a stinging countercultural rhetoric, it has in practice been a conservative force.
is crap: see Apache and MediaWiki. The closed-source model has never produced anything nearly as radical, important and innovative as either of those two projects. The iphone's interface is laughable in comparison.
That does not mean you have the luxury of deciding who uses it,
I am painfully aware of that. The article we are discussing asks, "how can we convince the military to use OSS", and my answer is we don't have to and we shouldn't.
Personally I would prefer if my contributions to Linux would not be used to help wage an illegal war of aggression against a country that never attacked nor even threatened the U.S.
Wouldn't the highest temperature be when the particles of the substance are moving at the speed of light?
Yes, but according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when v gets close to the speed of light.
wouldn't the top temperature be a particle vibrating back and forth at the speed of light?
Yes, but according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when v gets close to the speed of light.
So, if there is a speed limit, there must be a heat limit as well.
Not necessarily: according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when you v gets close to the speed of light.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the target audience for the ipad is idiots. Idiots don't care about technical arguments like that, however true they may be. Idiots want to surf youporn and play flash games on the web. Once they realize that their favorite sites don't work anymore, they won't be happy.
I guess you should ask them again once they have used the ipad to type in twenty email messages or blog comments.
People's daily moods do affect their movie ratings, and the winning algorithms account for that with parameters that vary by person and day. You can read about it in the winners' algorithm description.
unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?
That's indeed one of the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, it's in their charter. They are a 100% open source shop. After all, it's a "free encyclopedia", and the word "free" has many senses, all of which apply here.
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.
Maybe not innately evil, but certainly innately amoral. By law, a corporation may only perform actions that directly or indirectly increase profits. It cannot do things just because they are "right" or "good", it must always maximize profits, using all legally available means. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.
In their security alert, Adobe urges people to upgrade from Adobe Reader 9.1.0 to 9.1.1. If you install Reader from their main download site, they still give you 9.1.0. The 9.1.1 update is available only if you follow the links at the bottom of the security alert. Insecurity through obscurity!
Lamarck is one of those guys who's name is generally synonymous with bad science (he's about as villified as Darwin is deified).
Let's not forget that Darwin himself believed in Lamarckism; genetics wasn't known at the time.
That being said, the article is rather short in one important area: a suggested mechanism for this sort of inheritance. Without that, it's bound to be mired in controversy for some time.
The whole phenomenon isn't that new; it's called epigenetics and is transmitted most likely by the methylation pattern of the DNA, histone modification, and RNA interference. It's not stable and doesn't last beyond a few generations though, so it won't give a new mechanism for natural selection.
I don't remember the article you mean, but I know that the Mizar project set out to formalize all proofs in detail, checked by machine.
Let's make the simplifying assumptions that 1) everybody dies at age 80, 2) there are just as many women as men, 3) women start to marry at age 20 while men start to marry at age 60. Then polygamy works and every man can have two wives, without exception. This has nothing to do with "the sex ratio favoring women". It has to do with the fact that men stay married only 20 years, while women stay married for 40 years.
If you really came up with that idea on your own, then you are a genius. That idea is usually attributed to Wheeler. He told his student Feynman about it, who immediately shot it down: if it were true, we'd see just as many electrons as positrons, but we don't. See Feynman's Nobel lecture.
Where does the magnetic field perpendicular to the accretion disk come from? Does the material in the accretion disk carry a net charge?
Yes, that is important. Even more important is to convince others to use products with better policies.
Disappointed about what? That the foundation declined to reimburse the founder (who doesn't draw a salary) when he submitted a $1,300 dinner bill as an expense?
I hope you are ethical enough not to draw a salary from your non-profit, like Jimbo Wales. He only gets his traveling expenses reimbursed from the foundation (and the $1,300 dinner bill was rejected); he basically lives off speaker's fees and his Wikia salary.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
I disagree very much with that sentiment. I'm a college teacher. People with your opinion get an automatic F in all my classes. You asked for it, don't whine that it ain't fair.
That's a valid concern. Except it applies to all licensing, not just to CC.
Why would the kid upload it to Flickr under CC? Wouldn't it make much more sense to sell the stolen photo to a stock photo agency, claiming that he owns the copyright and that all model releases were on file? If you buy a photo from an agency, you always run the risk that the true copyright owner will later show up and sue you. Of course then you could try to sue the agency, and they would helpfully direct you to the kid who started it all. It doesn't matter, you're still liable.
is crap: see Apache and MediaWiki. The closed-source model has never produced anything nearly as radical, important and innovative as either of those two projects. The iphone's interface is laughable in comparison.
I am painfully aware of that. The article we are discussing asks, "how can we convince the military to use OSS", and my answer is we don't have to and we shouldn't.
Personally I would prefer if my contributions to Linux would not be used to help wage an illegal war of aggression against a country that never attacked nor even threatened the U.S.
Yes, but according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when v gets close to the speed of light.
Yes, but according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when v gets close to the speed of light.
Not necessarily: according to the formulas of special relativity, if an object with positive mass reaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy becomes infinite. The old formula E=1/2 m v^2 for the kinetic energy is not valid anymore when you v gets close to the speed of light.