Yeah, but from the Microsoft vs Sun license disagreement:
[7] Whether this is a copyright or a contract case turns on
whether the compatibility provisions help define the scope of
the license. Generally, a "copyright owner who grants a non-
exclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his
right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement " and can
sue only for breach of contract. Graham v. James , 144 F.3d
229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pansa
Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir. 1990)). If,
however, a license is limited in scope and the licensee acts
outside the scope, the licensor can bring an action for copy-
right infringement. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d
1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989); Nimmer on Copyright , S 1015[A]
(1999).
In the case of Sun vs Microsoft, there were different clauses that disagreed with each other, which pushed it into a contract dispute. In this case, there's almost certainly no disagreement in the clauses, the OSS guys have a rock-solid, clear license/contract, and theres no argument that an infringer is outside it and hence into copyright infringement territory.
Also the American law specifically tilts the playing field in cases like this towards copyright law; where there is a presumption of substantial harm (i.e. even if you're not trying to necessarily sell anything, if somebody uses your copyrighted material you can sue their ass off.) So the fact that it's free software is immaterial.
But the counterargument is that since they're self-evidently not following the terms of the license, then they don't have a binding contract, hence we're back to a copyright violation.
Why don't you go away and pray to an invisible person? You know you want to. I'm not sure how you'll know you've successfully done it, but that's your problem. I'd recommend the IPU personally, in your heart you know she's pink.
The lack of evidence for God in the human genome is evidence against creationism and many other forms of religion.
It's not, in and of itself, proof, but nevertherless it is evidence; strong evidence, and it disagrees in many places with the Bible.
I've looked at most of the Christian supposed evidence for the existence of God, and quite frankly, there isn't any that would past muster in any truly unbiased court of law.
Creating religions is easy; they're a dime-a-dozen in the world. Writing bibles is easy. Some of the religions cause less difficulties than others for people, but they all are sources of pain and conflict.
I read up on him, Dr. Collins is not referring to any specific features of the genome in his comments, he is indeed speculating that some aspects of the speciation event that created mankind might be divine intervention.
So, let's turn this right around. Random religious slashdot guy says that guy in charge of the human genome project has found evidence of religion in the human genome! More News at 10.
The genome coffee cup contains no coffee that anyone has found yet and there is much evidence that it is dry. Dr. Collins speculates wildly there *might* be some traces of coffee relating to the 0.6% difference between chimpanzees and humans, but absolutely no evidence of that has been found.
1% is a lot more than it sounds. Distilling it out of rock with a solar still is pretty straightforward- there's plenty of Sun on the moon for 2 weeks out of every 4, and it moves across the sky very slowly, so tracking it is easy.
You really need to compare this with some of the ores on Earth. 1% is a really, really high abundance; abundances are usually measured in parts per million.
I see no evidence that my wife just walked through the kitchen. This doesn't mean I have evidence my wife has not walked through the kitchen.
Careful here. It does if you were in the kitchen and looking for her.
I do not see an absence of my wife having been there, although I see no evidence of her having been there.
I don't know whether the cup in front of me has coffee in it. I try to taste, it, but I cannot. I look inside. I see no evidence of coffee. I put my finger in the cup; it does not get wet. I invert it over my head, my hair is still dry. I have found no evidence of coffee being there. By your 'logic', I have shown no absence of coffee in my cup. I do not believe your theory. Now perhaps, it's invisible, intangible, antigravity coffee. But that's OK, I don't consider that to be coffee.
You seem to have missed my point. The fact that the genes code for the same proteins make the changes irrelevant. That also is evidence against the changes being made by an intelligence; since an intelligence wouldn't need to do this. And these random changes are a very common theme throughout the genome- it is diagnostic of random mutations.
Also, your earlier statement "So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God." is quite different to your current post "Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes"
No.
as well as seeming to be contraditory to the views of Dr. Collins.
He is not claiming that there is any evidence for God in the genome.
All I've been saying is that none of what you've said is decisive for evolution. The things you've said are consistent with evolution, but not only consistent with evolution.
It is said that Bible is a consistent with religion, but it is not only consistent with religion.
Who do you believe, a book written by a bunch of highly biased guys, who say that there was a global flood where almost all the land creatures were wiped out, or nature acting on living organisms which said that they weren't?
You haven't demonstrated that they are pointless, random changes though. Merely that we haven't discerned a purpose for them, which is quite different.
We've shown they code for the self same proteins, therefore the changes are pointless.
Francis_Collins may possibly disagree with you there. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, believes in god. Not creationism, he'd probably agree with some things you've said, but to say the genome reveals an absence on god doesn't seem to be his view and I think he has some credibility.
Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes that have been examined, and what has been found is consistent with evolution. Collins believes in evolution and has hypothesised that moral values are derived from God. And I disagree with that- recent research seems to indicate that Chimpanzees have some degree of moral values also, so humans are not special in that regard, and moral values to the extent that they help with the survival of individuals or social groups are clearly consistent with evolutionary theory.
Ok, I'll bite. If God has no limits, why has he never healed a severed limb? That's never been recorded. Many people have prayed, none have been given back their limbs. According to you he's omnipotent. How come?
The thing is, for some genes you can make small differences to the genes, and they make no difference to the proteins that they code for. And you often find these differences in the genomes between different creatures. But these differences to the common genes are attributable to random drift, so you can predict how many of these irrelevant differences there would be, based on when two creatures separated their lineage. A God that deliberately makes pointless, random changes to genes whilst designing animals makes no sense at all. That's decisive for evolution. So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God.
Well, we can certainly see the 60% common genome with bananas in your case. Why would God need to give you 60% the same genes as bananas? Answer: he wouldn't. The only sensible explanation is that the tree of life has evolved into bananas, monkeys, humans from a common starting organism over billions of years. You know, billions of years, like the stars are billions of years old; we can see them with telescopes. Not last wednesday, billions of years. Sheesh.
Doubtless. I can't imagine Nominet doing anything else, but it's what happens after that that tells us whether there's enough separation between ICANN and Nominet or not. If ICANN could actually force it though, that would be a major 'woah'.
Thing is, '.org' is an American name server. So spamhaus.org is under the jurisdiction of the federal court; and the federal court can get them kicked off '.org'. That's the problem.
It's not clear even that Spamhaus can hang on to their '.org.uk' since the federal courts can lean on ICANN to lean on '.uk', and probably nobody knows what would happen then; it's never happened before.
A zillion times? Bit of an exageration don't you think?
FWIW it's about 16 tonnes of fuel needed per ton of payload. (There's also 32 tonnes of LOX needed, but that's hugely less energy/environmental impact, and there's energy in the rocket itself as well.)
To put this in perspective, I worked out it's about the same as the amount of fuel you need to fly around the world a few times on a Boeing 747 (stopping to refuel at the normal intervals); except with the rocket you can keep going, and going and going...:-)
Problem is, eating a single atom doesn't make the event horizon significantly bigger.
So yeah, you might get one atom eaten if you're very lucky. But it can't eat two- it will evaporate long before it gets big enough for that.
Besides, cosmic rays hit the Earth all the time that are higher energy than this machine can produce. If there really was a significant chain reaction strong enough to turn the Earth into a black hole, it would already have happened long ago.
Create an exit portal leading up and an entrance one in the ceiling. Tricky (timing) but possible. Again law of conservation of energy is violated but in opposite direction.
That doesn't quite work. The right thing to do would be to create two portals on the ground, fall through one and back out of the other one, then you have to make a hole in the ceiling and one in the floor in line with it and fall up it until you stop, then cancel the portals, and land.
I'm not sure they'll let you get out of an infinite loop alive. Portals violate conservation of energy, so you end up falling faster and faster, leave the infinite loop and you're gonna go splat I think.
Last time I heard fiber optic didn't work very well in aircraft.
One problem is it's still glass, and glass is brittle. Also connectors are a massive pain in the neck; normal wires can be connected and disconnected with a good deal of impunity. Fiber optic connectors need cleaning every time you connect them, they're total pains.
Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but from the Microsoft vs Sun license disagreement:
In the case of Sun vs Microsoft, there were different clauses that disagreed with each other, which pushed it into a contract dispute. In this case, there's almost certainly no disagreement in the clauses, the OSS guys have a rock-solid, clear license/contract, and theres no argument that an infringer is outside it and hence into copyright infringement territory. Also the American law specifically tilts the playing field in cases like this towards copyright law; where there is a presumption of substantial harm (i.e. even if you're not trying to necessarily sell anything, if somebody uses your copyrighted material you can sue their ass off.) So the fact that it's free software is immaterial.But the counterargument is that since they're self-evidently not following the terms of the license, then they don't have a binding contract, hence we're back to a copyright violation.
So, prediction: they're going to lose.
Why don't you go away and pray to an invisible person? You know you want to. I'm not sure how you'll know you've successfully done it, but that's your problem. I'd recommend the IPU personally, in your heart you know she's pink.
The lack of evidence for God in the human genome is evidence against creationism and many other forms of religion.
It's not, in and of itself, proof, but nevertherless it is evidence; strong evidence, and it disagrees in many places with the Bible.
I've looked at most of the Christian supposed evidence for the existence of God, and quite frankly, there isn't any that would past muster in any truly unbiased court of law.
Creating religions is easy; they're a dime-a-dozen in the world. Writing bibles is easy. Some of the religions cause less difficulties than others for people, but they all are sources of pain and conflict.
I read up on him, Dr. Collins is not referring to any specific features of the genome in his comments, he is indeed speculating that some aspects of the speciation event that created mankind might be divine intervention.
So, let's turn this right around. Random religious slashdot guy says that guy in charge of the human genome project has found evidence of religion in the human genome! More News at 10.
Or backup the data somewhere secure and verifiably accessible to the right people. I mean, it's a laptop and they never get lost or damaged right? :-)
The genome coffee cup contains no coffee that anyone has found yet and there is much evidence that it is dry. Dr. Collins speculates wildly there *might* be some traces of coffee relating to the 0.6% difference between chimpanzees and humans, but absolutely no evidence of that has been found.
1% is a lot more than it sounds. Distilling it out of rock with a solar still is pretty straightforward- there's plenty of Sun on the moon for 2 weeks out of every 4, and it moves across the sky very slowly, so tracking it is easy.
You really need to compare this with some of the ores on Earth. 1% is a really, really high abundance; abundances are usually measured in parts per million.
I see no evidence that my wife just walked through the kitchen. This doesn't mean I have evidence my wife has not walked through the kitchen.
Careful here. It does if you were in the kitchen and looking for her.
I do not see an absence of my wife having been there, although I see no evidence of her having been there.
I don't know whether the cup in front of me has coffee in it. I try to taste, it, but I cannot. I look inside. I see no evidence of coffee. I put my finger in the cup; it does not get wet. I invert it over my head, my hair is still dry. I have found no evidence of coffee being there. By your 'logic', I have shown no absence of coffee in my cup. I do not believe your theory. Now perhaps, it's invisible, intangible, antigravity coffee. But that's OK, I don't consider that to be coffee.
You seem to have missed my point. The fact that the genes code for the same proteins make the changes irrelevant. That also is evidence against the changes being made by an intelligence; since an intelligence wouldn't need to do this. And these random changes are a very common theme throughout the genome- it is diagnostic of random mutations.
Also, your earlier statement "So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God." is quite different to your current post "Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes"
No.
as well as seeming to be contraditory to the views of Dr. Collins.
He is not claiming that there is any evidence for God in the genome.
All I've been saying is that none of what you've said is decisive for evolution. The things you've said are consistent with evolution, but not only consistent with evolution.
It is said that Bible is a consistent with religion, but it is not only consistent with religion.
Who do you believe, a book written by a bunch of highly biased guys, who say that there was a global flood where almost all the land creatures were wiped out, or nature acting on living organisms which said that they weren't?
You haven't demonstrated that they are pointless, random changes though. Merely that we haven't discerned a purpose for them, which is quite different.
We've shown they code for the self same proteins, therefore the changes are pointless.
Francis_Collins may possibly disagree with you there. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, believes in god. Not creationism, he'd probably agree with some things you've said, but to say the genome reveals an absence on god doesn't seem to be his view and I think he has some credibility.
Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes that have been examined, and what has been found is consistent with evolution. Collins believes in evolution and has hypothesised that moral values are derived from God. And I disagree with that- recent research seems to indicate that Chimpanzees have some degree of moral values also, so humans are not special in that regard, and moral values to the extent that they help with the survival of individuals or social groups are clearly consistent with evolutionary theory.
Ok, I'll bite. If God has no limits, why has he never healed a severed limb? That's never been recorded. Many people have prayed, none have been given back their limbs. According to you he's omnipotent. How come?
The thing is, for some genes you can make small differences to the genes, and they make no difference to the proteins that they code for. And you often find these differences in the genomes between different creatures. But these differences to the common genes are attributable to random drift, so you can predict how many of these irrelevant differences there would be, based on when two creatures separated their lineage. A God that deliberately makes pointless, random changes to genes whilst designing animals makes no sense at all. That's decisive for evolution. So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God.
Well, we can certainly see the 60% common genome with bananas in your case. Why would God need to give you 60% the same genes as bananas? Answer: he wouldn't. The only sensible explanation is that the tree of life has evolved into bananas, monkeys, humans from a common starting organism over billions of years. You know, billions of years, like the stars are billions of years old; we can see them with telescopes. Not last wednesday, billions of years. Sheesh.
Doubtless. I can't imagine Nominet doing anything else, but it's what happens after that that tells us whether there's enough separation between ICANN and Nominet or not. If ICANN could actually force it though, that would be a major 'woah'.
Thing is, '.org' is an American name server. So spamhaus.org is under the jurisdiction of the federal court; and the federal court can get them kicked off '.org'. That's the problem.
It's not clear even that Spamhaus can hang on to their '.org.uk' since the federal courts can lean on ICANN to lean on '.uk', and probably nobody knows what would happen then; it's never happened before.
FWIW it's about 16 tonnes of fuel needed per ton of payload. (There's also 32 tonnes of LOX needed, but that's hugely less energy/environmental impact, and there's energy in the rocket itself as well.)
To put this in perspective, I worked out it's about the same as the amount of fuel you need to fly around the world a few times on a Boeing 747 (stopping to refuel at the normal intervals); except with the rocket you can keep going, and going and going... :-)
Problem is, eating a single atom doesn't make the event horizon significantly bigger. So yeah, you might get one atom eaten if you're very lucky. But it can't eat two- it will evaporate long before it gets big enough for that. Besides, cosmic rays hit the Earth all the time that are higher energy than this machine can produce. If there really was a significant chain reaction strong enough to turn the Earth into a black hole, it would already have happened long ago.
The yellow car won.
That doesn't quite work. The right thing to do would be to create two portals on the ground, fall through one and back out of the other one, then you have to make a hole in the ceiling and one in the floor in line with it and fall up it until you stop, then cancel the portals, and land.
I'm not sure they'll let you get out of an infinite loop alive. Portals violate conservation of energy, so you end up falling faster and faster, leave the infinite loop and you're gonna go splat I think.
Yeah "X should not be called a Y" argument should be called a real argument!
One problem is it's still glass, and glass is brittle. Also connectors are a massive pain in the neck; normal wires can be connected and disconnected with a good deal of impunity. Fiber optic connectors need cleaning every time you connect them, they're total pains.
(Actually there does seem to be carbon in the asteroid belt as well.)
We could have made beautiful money together! Alas it was not to be.