You invest it wisely and it means that you never have to worry again about whether someone will give you a grant to work on the problems you want to work on. The money represents freedom.
Every tenured math professor has that freedom. Luckily, math research is cheap, so all you need is some travel money, and that comes with the job.
Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.
Obviously, their religion was just a PR trick. Had they been true believing Christians, they could have saved themselves a lot of work and money: as Jesus said so eloquently in Mt 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
In practice, being rich/famous probably gets you moved up a few places, witness Mickey Mantle and David Crosby, who both got liver's soon after their cases were wildly publicized.
I find it utterly unbelievable that relatives of organ donors can designate a recipient. Only medical criteria should matter. Otherwise, people with the money/wit to start a public relations campaign will be more likely to get an organ. And all that without the approval of the donor! I know that I would have hated to find my liver in this guy.
Planar Systems has a stereo system that does require polarized glasses
How stupid is that? A monitor that sends out two polarized signals, and a pair of glasses that separate the two signals? Why not simply do away with the monitor and use a 3d headset that feeds different images to the different eyes. The headset also has a motion sensor, so you can turn your head all the way, not just 10 degrees.
As I understand it, standard 2D displays of 3D scenes already make use of all of the non-stereo 3D perception methods.
No. In the real world, you can figure out how far something is away by paying attention to how much you have to bend your eye's lens to see the thing in focus. You need only one eye to do that. On a 2D display it won't work. The other one-eyed technique that works in the real world but not on 2D displays is to move your head slightly.
A possible monitor that supports all modes of 3D detection would work like this: rather than have a raster of pixels, each sending the same light in all directions, you need a raster of "sheaves" of lightrays. For each point of the display and each direction, the graphics card would determine the color of the corresponding lightray. Such a monitor would be indistinguishable from a window.
Nothing is stopping them from coming after you though.
That is absolutely correct. ''Using'' a patented device without permission is just as illegal as ''making'' such a device without permission. The penalty may not be as large, but most certainly you can be sued.
It is my understanding that Real figured out a way to take their own DRM-files and change them into AAC files which can then be played on Apple's ipod. They claim to have figured out AAC by reverse engineering.
1) Reverse engineering to ensure compatibility is explicitly allowed by the DMCA
2) Apple's copyright protection scheme has not been removed or broken by Real's hack, so DMCA doesn't apply.
3) Real hasn't copied anything from Apple, so no copyright has been infringed.
4) The only possible action is a patent enforcement: Apple could claim that Real has used patented AAC technology without permission. Real buys a license, case closed.
It seems to me that atheism says that there is nothing to get "shoulds" from, there are only physiological wants. Therefore, I don't see how a classification of morality works when there is nothing but phyisiology at play.
I have physiological wants, and I realize that you do to. I also understand that we're both better off if there's a general rule against hurting others. So I will advocate said rule, and call it "good".
Why would something be "right" or "wrong" if everything is _only_ a sophisticated collection of atoms. Why are the atoms of a carbon-based form of more worth than silicon?
Some collections of atoms can suffer and experience pleasure, others can't. That's the only relevant difference. Anything that unnecessarily causes collections of atoms to suffer is wrong. (The last statement is not a deep insight, just a possible atheist's definition of "wrong"). It is observed that attributing certain "rights" to certain collections of atoms minimizes suffering. So violating those rights is also wrong.
Well, people working at this organization are probably not particularly porn friendly. So they see a site with (legal) teenage models, they don't like it, they block it. Why would they spend the time and investigate in detail about the exact age of the models? Furthermore, it's impossible to tell since their block list is not being made public.
Surely, making those who are interested in the information pay for it up front is a lot more honest and fair than to finance the site by advertising. In the advertising model, viewers of the site are being subsidized by consumers of the advertised products, without the consent of said consumers.
It's true that GFDL was hardly designed for pictures. We interpret it as follows: the picture can be freely used by anyone for all purposes, as long as they place it under GFDL and acknowledge the creator in some way.
It sure is. I think Encyclopedia Britannica is quickly approaching the right price as well, seeing that the books cost $1400, while the DVD is only $50.
it kicks the legs right out from under the Linux users' favorite argument that Windows can never be adequately secured no matter how hard you try. That's simply not the case.
How exactly do you secure a Windows system adequately if one crucial component of it, Internet Explorer, has numerous well-known, unpatched and actively exploited bugs?
You can print it as the webpage itself, but there is no option to for example:
Printer-friendly - just the article with no website masthead or navigation bars on the sides.
If you print a page, it automatically switches to a printer friendly layout without navigation bars etc.
Your sense of the adjective "well regulated" can be applied to guns, not to militias. Furthermore, there would have been no reason for the framers of the constitution to write "militia with well regulated guns" unless they would have added "well trained, well fed, well financed...". Lastly, the sense of "regulated" that everyone understands to be the correct one, and which is also the only grammatically sensible one, has been in use since 1630 according to OED.
Eco-terrorists should take a page from Ghandi's book.
You really like the term "eco-terrorist", don't you? Just say it a couple more times, if it makes you feel better. It doesn't help your argument though.
Greenpeace actually did take a page from Gandhi's book. They regularly employ the tactic of small breaches of the law in order to point to big injustices. Exactly like Gandhi's Salt March. It's called civil disobedience.
Why can't an environmentalist like nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods? Both have advantages and risks.
Sure, except the ones who take the risk are not the ones who get the advantages. In the case of GMO's, the risks are uninsurable; the benefits are basically higher yields.
The European Union throws away heavily subsidized crops every year and dumps the rest on the world market, to price out producers from poor countries. What the hell do we need higher yields for?
European consumers are almost unanimous in the rejection of GMO's (mostly because of health/allergy concerns), yet the EU was forced by WTO to accept these products in. The customer is king? Thankfully, at least these products will have to be clearly marked. But the burden to carefully check all labels remains on the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Every tenured math professor has that freedom. Luckily, math research is cheap, so all you need is some travel money, and that comes with the job.
Russia is currently run by free market forces largely unhampered by laws or other government interference.
Obviously, their religion was just a PR trick. Had they been true believing Christians, they could have saved themselves a lot of work and money: as Jesus said so eloquently in Mt 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
No it doesn't. To wit: poor people get more children than rich people.
Maybe they got directed donations as well?
I find it utterly unbelievable that relatives of organ donors can designate a recipient. Only medical criteria should matter. Otherwise, people with the money/wit to start a public relations campaign will be more likely to get an organ. And all that without the approval of the donor! I know that I would have hated to find my liver in this guy.
How stupid is that? A monitor that sends out two polarized signals, and a pair of glasses that separate the two signals? Why not simply do away with the monitor and use a 3d headset that feeds different images to the different eyes. The headset also has a motion sensor, so you can turn your head all the way, not just 10 degrees.
No. In the real world, you can figure out how far something is away by paying attention to how much you have to bend your eye's lens to see the thing in focus. You need only one eye to do that. On a 2D display it won't work. The other one-eyed technique that works in the real world but not on 2D displays is to move your head slightly.
A possible monitor that supports all modes of 3D detection would work like this: rather than have a raster of pixels, each sending the same light in all directions, you need a raster of "sheaves" of lightrays. For each point of the display and each direction, the graphics card would determine the color of the corresponding lightray. Such a monitor would be indistinguishable from a window.
That is absolutely correct. ''Using'' a patented device without permission is just as illegal as ''making'' such a device without permission. The penalty may not be as large, but most certainly you can be sued.
#apt-file update
#apt-file search smbmount
1) Reverse engineering to ensure compatibility is explicitly allowed by the DMCA
2) Apple's copyright protection scheme has not been removed or broken by Real's hack, so DMCA doesn't apply.
3) Real hasn't copied anything from Apple, so no copyright has been infringed.
4) The only possible action is a patent enforcement: Apple could claim that Real has used patented AAC technology without permission. Real buys a license, case closed.
I have physiological wants, and I realize that you do to. I also understand that we're both better off if there's a general rule against hurting others. So I will advocate said rule, and call it "good".
Some collections of atoms can suffer and experience pleasure, others can't. That's the only relevant difference. Anything that unnecessarily causes collections of atoms to suffer is wrong. (The last statement is not a deep insight, just a possible atheist's definition of "wrong"). It is observed that attributing certain "rights" to certain collections of atoms minimizes suffering. So violating those rights is also wrong.
Well, people working at this organization are probably not particularly porn friendly. So they see a site with (legal) teenage models, they don't like it, they block it. Why would they spend the time and investigate in detail about the exact age of the models? Furthermore, it's impossible to tell since their block list is not being made public.
Surely, making those who are interested in the information pay for it up front is a lot more honest and fair than to finance the site by advertising. In the advertising model, viewers of the site are being subsidized by consumers of the advertised products, without the consent of said consumers.
It's true that GFDL was hardly designed for pictures. We interpret it as follows: the picture can be freely used by anyone for all purposes, as long as they place it under GFDL and acknowledge the creator in some way.
It sure is. I think Encyclopedia Britannica is quickly approaching the right price as well, seeing that the books cost $1400, while the DVD is only $50.
How exactly do you secure a Windows system adequately if one crucial component of it, Internet Explorer, has numerous well-known, unpatched and actively exploited bugs?
If you print a page, it automatically switches to a printer friendly layout without navigation bars etc.
Your sense of the adjective "well regulated" can be applied to guns, not to militias. Furthermore, there would have been no reason for the framers of the constitution to write "militia with well regulated guns" unless they would have added "well trained, well fed, well financed...". Lastly, the sense of "regulated" that everyone understands to be the correct one, and which is also the only grammatically sensible one, has been in use since 1630 according to OED.
Just a couple of incorrect things we've found in Britannica over the years: Making Fun of Britannica
They don't want your sympathy, they want to get on the news. And they're good at it, that's why they get my money.
You really like the term "eco-terrorist", don't you? Just say it a couple more times, if it makes you feel better. It doesn't help your argument though.
Greenpeace actually did take a page from Gandhi's book. They regularly employ the tactic of small breaches of the law in order to point to big injustices. Exactly like Gandhi's Salt March. It's called civil disobedience.
Do you know the message of Greenpeace? Yes you do. Why? Because of their effective actions which keep them in the news.
Sure, except the ones who take the risk are not the ones who get the advantages. In the case of GMO's, the risks are uninsurable; the benefits are basically higher yields.
The European Union throws away heavily subsidized crops every year and dumps the rest on the world market, to price out producers from poor countries. What the hell do we need higher yields for?
European consumers are almost unanimous in the rejection of GMO's (mostly because of health/allergy concerns), yet the EU was forced by WTO to accept these products in. The customer is king? Thankfully, at least these products will have to be clearly marked. But the burden to carefully check all labels remains on the customer.