While I totally understand how people who are professionals, or even people who may not strictly qualify as "professional", but nonetheless use at least some of their spare time to try and still make a few extra dollars of income using the software might shell out a subscription fee for software, I honestly have no idea why someone who didn't have any intent to try and make money using the software would shell out money month after month just to continue to use it unless it was some sort of Patreon supported software or something similar, which Adobe quite clearly is not.
Adobe has also begun pitching its products to hobbyists
I'm somehow pretty sure that their subscription-only model isn't going to have as strong of an appeal among hobbyists as Adobe might hope.
While I certainly can't discount the possibility that there are probably a few die-hard adobe fans out there that would do this, it certainly wouldn't be the norm. I would put at being about as common, I think, as someone who likes to cook as a hobby going and renting a professional kitchen whenever they do.
Which means that it's not a color x-ray, it's an x ray that has been artificially colored. You can do the same thing with a regular x ray and a box of crayola crayons. The only difference is that it's being done automatically by software.
Serious question.... Last time I checked, absent any visible light source, nothing has any visible color. Or are they going to shine a *really* bright light on a person and exploit any translucency their skin and organs might have to image them in color?
If a person is dead, whether or not there is any documentation to prove it is irrelevant, it is categorically *NOT* fraud to state that they are dead... it is only fraud to state they are dead if they are not.
Any new builds have infrastructure set up for handling the charging of electric cars.
It totally bites if you live in an apartment that was built more than about 20 years ago, however... there is simply not enough interest by the owners to invest in the necessary upgrades.
It is a nice combination of begging the question and invoking infinity. We are alone because life is virtually impossible; we alone defeated the impossible odds; how do we know impossible odds can be defeated? because we are here to see it. Hence, impossible odds can be defeated, but only once, by us.
Not impossible... and not necessarily only once, but also not necessarily at all in the first place. It happened once..,. but saying that it happened once should imply it will or even is likely to happen again is like saying that because you win a lottery the very first time that you play, then you should expect that at least some of your friends ought to win the lottery the first time they play as well. Sure, it might happen... but the odds are sufficiently against it that it that it probably won't.... the odds were against you winning the lottery the first time you played as well anyways, so while that's proof that overwhelming odds won't actually prevent something from occurring, it's still not proof to expect something you can reasonably say is unlikely.
But for what it's worth, we don't actually know just how unlikely complex life is in the universe.... and if we never discover any other life, we will never actually know, regardless if we are completely alone or not.
But given that it's at least a falsifiable proposition that we are alone in the universe (since a single counterexample of complex life elsewhere will disprove it), it seems like the more sensible position to presume from a rational perspective to be the more likely scenario, and *IF* that is the case, then it follows that the reason for it would simply be that the odds of it must have been so astoundingly rare that we are simply just lucky to be here at all.
Of course, if we aren't alone, then it's all entirely moot... but as I said, as a falsifiable premise, it is arguably the more rational assumption to make in absence of any specific data to suggest that it might be in error, just as it is more rational to assume that there are no invisible flying elephants in my refrigerator than to offer any credibility to the notion that there might be.
Of course its falsifiable... it's an eventually testable hypothesis, and I would therefore suggest it is the more worthy one to adopt.
And by the way, you can prove a negative... the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the aether, for instance. To prove a negative, you only need an unambiguous implication of the existence of whatever you are wanting to disprove in an objectively measurable way.
The *only* proof that extraterrestrial complex life exists or is even necessarily likely is an example of it.
Given what we don't know about the universe, the only logically valid thing that we can say is that we simply don't know if there is other complex life out there or not... we cannot make any meaningful estimations of its actual probability of occurrence, even given the vastness of the universe, unless or until we encounter at least one other form of it. If we never do, we will never know. This makes the belief that we probably aren't alone in the universe an actually unfalsifiable premise, even if it weren't true.
Now given the gigantic (known) number of galaxies containing a gigantic number of stars, even if that life probability is low, that would be quite a stretch to conclude life exists only on Earth.
Doesn't that depend on just how low that probability actually is? As vast as the observable universe is, it is still of finite size and age, and will eventually end at some finite point in the (extremely) distant future, and it is quite far from inconceivable that we are simply just lucky to be here.... at all. For example, what if the chances of life were one in some vastly huge number that is no more comprehensible than the vastness of the universe itself, like say graham's number (not that I am suggesting that the odds are that, specifically, I am simply using it as an example)... if the odds of complex life forming were ever that low then in fact it would probably be assumed that complex life would probably not form at all. We may be erroneously assuming that because we exist, that this implies that the probability of our existence was ever something that even began to approach likelihood or normalcy in the first place, but this isn't necessarily the case.
Assuming that we are alone, the reason for it would likely simply be because complex life is so astoundingly improbable, and that we just plain got very lucky.
Of course, it's difficult to imagine such a vanishingly small probability that it would not be likely to recur somewhere in the vastness of the universe... but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
And I don't mean to suggest that we necessarily are alone or make any statement about the likelihood of complex life.... I just mean that if we are alone, it would imply only that we were simply incredibly lucky to be here at all.
But don't worry about it, because if we are alone, we'll never know it.... we can keep on assuming that life exists out there, somewhere, simply beyond our current technological capacity to observe it, and never actually be shown to be wrong.
True.... nomative use does requre a clear non-commercial intent. But a conference held by fans for fans could definitely qualify as that... depending on how it is conducted.
That work did not qualify as nomative use for several reasons, not the least of which was the profit that it was going to make if it proceeded as originally planned.
Again, nomative use is a valid defense to trademark infringement. There are certain criteria that have to be in place for nomative use to be applicable (just as there must be certain criteria for fair use to be a defense against copyright infringement), but simply dressing up as a trademarked character and even publicly who you are dressed up as would *easily* fit into that.
Google the term if you don't know what is. All they need to do is both assert normative usage rights and to expressly indicate that they are not endorsed by or affiliated with the owners of the Harry Potter franchise, including but not limited to J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers.
That's like saying that a slot machine that takes quarters but will always spit out at least a one penny prize isn't gambling... you agree to buy the pennies for a quarter a piece, even though they aren't worth that much.
I realize this analogy breaks down in that the value of a penny vs a quarter can be objectively determined while the value of a loot box might be more subjective, but the general concept is still the same.
I don't recall.... I just remember that openjdk didn't do what I needed out of the box, and I needed to download the oracle jdk just to get their certificates. I then copied their certificates to the right place for openjdk and used them with openjdk without issue for a while, but then when there was an update to openjdk, they stopped working, and I had to grab the latest oracle jdk again. When that happened, I just decided to not bother with openjdk at all after that.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... honestly that really surprises me.
While I totally understand how people who are professionals, or even people who may not strictly qualify as "professional", but nonetheless use at least some of their spare time to try and still make a few extra dollars of income using the software might shell out a subscription fee for software, I honestly have no idea why someone who didn't have any intent to try and make money using the software would shell out money month after month just to continue to use it unless it was some sort of Patreon supported software or something similar, which Adobe quite clearly is not.
FTS:
I'm somehow pretty sure that their subscription-only model isn't going to have as strong of an appeal among hobbyists as Adobe might hope.
While I certainly can't discount the possibility that there are probably a few die-hard adobe fans out there that would do this, it certainly wouldn't be the norm. I would put at being about as common, I think, as someone who likes to cook as a hobby going and renting a professional kitchen whenever they do.
Which means that it's not a color x-ray, it's an x ray that has been artificially colored. You can do the same thing with a regular x ray and a box of crayola crayons. The only difference is that it's being done automatically by software.
Serious question.... Last time I checked, absent any visible light source, nothing has any visible color. Or are they going to shine a *really* bright light on a person and exploit any translucency their skin and organs might have to image them in color?
If a person is dead, whether or not there is any documentation to prove it is irrelevant, it is categorically *NOT* fraud to state that they are dead... it is only fraud to state they are dead if they are not.
The letter did not say what 15.4(c) was. If it had, I would not have asked the question.
I'm wondering how it could be that dying could be interpreted as breach of contract.... does anyone here know exactly what it said?
Any new builds have infrastructure set up for handling the charging of electric cars.
It totally bites if you live in an apartment that was built more than about 20 years ago, however... there is simply not enough interest by the owners to invest in the necessary upgrades.
It might not be "outside the laws of physics" impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not still impossible for all practical purposes.
.55lbs is not much, however. About the weight of two iphones stacked together.
Honestly, I see no point to a recreational drone needing to have a longer range than a few hundred meters.
Not impossible... and not necessarily only once, but also not necessarily at all in the first place. It happened once..,. but saying that it happened once should imply it will or even is likely to happen again is like saying that because you win a lottery the very first time that you play, then you should expect that at least some of your friends ought to win the lottery the first time they play as well. Sure, it might happen... but the odds are sufficiently against it that it that it probably won't.... the odds were against you winning the lottery the first time you played as well anyways, so while that's proof that overwhelming odds won't actually prevent something from occurring, it's still not proof to expect something you can reasonably say is unlikely.
But for what it's worth, we don't actually know just how unlikely complex life is in the universe.... and if we never discover any other life, we will never actually know, regardless if we are completely alone or not.
But given that it's at least a falsifiable proposition that we are alone in the universe (since a single counterexample of complex life elsewhere will disprove it), it seems like the more sensible position to presume from a rational perspective to be the more likely scenario, and *IF* that is the case, then it follows that the reason for it would simply be that the odds of it must have been so astoundingly rare that we are simply just lucky to be here at all.
Of course, if we aren't alone, then it's all entirely moot... but as I said, as a falsifiable premise, it is arguably the more rational assumption to make in absence of any specific data to suggest that it might be in error, just as it is more rational to assume that there are no invisible flying elephants in my refrigerator than to offer any credibility to the notion that there might be.
Of course its falsifiable... it's an eventually testable hypothesis, and I would therefore suggest it is the more worthy one to adopt.
And by the way, you can prove a negative... the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the aether, for instance. To prove a negative, you only need an unambiguous implication of the existence of whatever you are wanting to disprove in an objectively measurable way.
The *only* proof that extraterrestrial complex life exists or is even necessarily likely is an example of it.
Given what we don't know about the universe, the only logically valid thing that we can say is that we simply don't know if there is other complex life out there or not... we cannot make any meaningful estimations of its actual probability of occurrence, even given the vastness of the universe, unless or until we encounter at least one other form of it. If we never do, we will never know. This makes the belief that we probably aren't alone in the universe an actually unfalsifiable premise, even if it weren't true.
Doesn't that depend on just how low that probability actually is? As vast as the observable universe is, it is still of finite size and age, and will eventually end at some finite point in the (extremely) distant future, and it is quite far from inconceivable that we are simply just lucky to be here.... at all. For example, what if the chances of life were one in some vastly huge number that is no more comprehensible than the vastness of the universe itself, like say graham's number (not that I am suggesting that the odds are that, specifically, I am simply using it as an example)... if the odds of complex life forming were ever that low then in fact it would probably be assumed that complex life would probably not form at all. We may be erroneously assuming that because we exist, that this implies that the probability of our existence was ever something that even began to approach likelihood or normalcy in the first place, but this isn't necessarily the case.
Of course, it's difficult to imagine such a vanishingly small probability that it would not be likely to recur somewhere in the vastness of the universe... but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
And I don't mean to suggest that we necessarily are alone or make any statement about the likelihood of complex life.... I just mean that if we are alone, it would imply only that we were simply incredibly lucky to be here at all.
But don't worry about it, because if we are alone, we'll never know it.... we can keep on assuming that life exists out there, somewhere, simply beyond our current technological capacity to observe it, and never actually be shown to be wrong.
So children aren't intelligent, since they need training to do things like read and write, or even how to talk?
True.... nomative use does requre a clear non-commercial intent. But a conference held by fans for fans could definitely qualify as that... depending on how it is conducted.
That work did not qualify as nomative use for several reasons, not the least of which was the profit that it was going to make if it proceeded as originally planned.
Again, nomative use is a valid defense to trademark infringement. There are certain criteria that have to be in place for nomative use to be applicable (just as there must be certain criteria for fair use to be a defense against copyright infringement), but simply dressing up as a trademarked character and even publicly who you are dressed up as would *easily* fit into that.
Nomative use is not considered to dilute a trademark.
Stupid autocorrect.
Google the term if you don't know what is. All they need to do is both assert normative usage rights and to expressly indicate that they are not endorsed by or affiliated with the owners of the Harry Potter franchise, including but not limited to J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers.
That's like saying that a slot machine that takes quarters but will always spit out at least a one penny prize isn't gambling... you agree to buy the pennies for a quarter a piece, even though they aren't worth that much.
I realize this analogy breaks down in that the value of a penny vs a quarter can be objectively determined while the value of a loot box might be more subjective, but the general concept is still the same.
I don't recall.... I just remember that openjdk didn't do what I needed out of the box, and I needed to download the oracle jdk just to get their certificates. I then copied their certificates to the right place for openjdk and used them with openjdk without issue for a while, but then when there was an update to openjdk, they stopped working, and I had to grab the latest oracle jdk again. When that happened, I just decided to not bother with openjdk at all after that.