Okay, I guess that came about a little different than my _ACTUAL_ beliefs. Yes, in legal terms a corporation has all of the rights of an individual. Now, I don't necessarilly think that is morally or ethically right. But according to the legal system that the United States is under, a corporation has all of the rights that an individual is granted. And from what I've seen, a corporation really don't have the burden of what an individual has to carry. Feel free to infer what you will.
Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"?
Yes, at least legally speaking, that is in fact the very definition and raison d'etre of a corporation. Basically, it it defines a group of people as a seperate entity from its members, bearing legal rights as though it were an individual. The term corporation is derived from Latin meaning "to be a body" where body, in legal terms again, means an individual.
So patents are, given human nature, inherrently evil. I'll agree that this is a contingent fact, but what it's contingent on is human nature, and that doesn't seem to have changed significantly since language first appeared.
Reading this for some reason made me come up with a possible correlate. Even if it is not in human nature for _ALL_ people to be greedy (which is the subset of evil that I believe this thread is covering) it would only take a small number of greedy people to start taking advantage of the system. Once they start taking advantage of the system (patents in this case) they then give themselves an additional adge which allows them to take even more advantage, giving them an even larger edge, untill some other mitigating factor comes in to play.
I suppose this concept is strongly supported by the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" in which any shared limited resource will eventually become overexploited, in this case the resource being ideas. Tragedy of the commons is often thrown about in social sciences, eccology and economics and provides an interesting viewpoint on creating government decisions. I say government because by the nature of reality, the individuals involved will never come to an agreement; some judge or authority has to step in and draw boundaries and limits.
Well, it's been known that they use a pattern in that the arrangement of base units in a line represents a pattern. AFAIK it has not been general knowledge in the biology community that there is a temporal pattern involved with this activation as well. And DNA turning on and off is a little simplistic, there are such things as rate of transcription, how many simultaneous transcriptions occur, etc.
Yeah... that part is actually a joke my dad used to make back then. Took me a while to get it. THere is a difference, though: the snowbanks were probably mid-thigh high on him or so. Oh, and once snow fell, it was actually likely to stay around. I can't think of one winter since I started college where there was not a major that in January. Case in point it is currently 47F (8C) and there is a thunderstorm outside. I guess I would actually have to talk to a climatologist to see if this is really wierd weather or not, but there was a definate cut-off in local climate here in about 1996 where we just stopped getting normal winters. Err, except winter of 1998/1999. I think we had a big snowfall that stuck around till late february.
I was about to ask if you live in the Midwestern United States, because that sounds _EXACTLY_ like the climate changes I've experienced in the 27 years I've been alive. Then I look at your email address, and it looks to me like you live in Poland? Then again, we have very similar climates, from what I understand. Might make sense that they would change in the same way.
I also remember that when I was a little kid, snowbanks would reach well above my head, nowadays it hardly ever reaches above my knee.
So explain to me how latin plurals are appropriate, but Old English plaurals are only "antiquated?"
That comparison was just these two words. Since virus is derived from a latin word, it can be appropriate to use the latin ending. However, to the best of my knowledge, the word box was not historically pluralized as boxen. It's sort of like pluralizing "moose" as "meese" because more than one "goose" is a group of "geese."
As languages are fluid and change over time, I'm not saying that using the plural boxen is bad. I'm just saying that there are no rules which say it _SHOULD_ be boxen, it is simply creating a play on words based on an exception to a pluralization rule.
Then again the term virii is not the standard pluralization of virus in the english language, either. I'm just saying that there is more reason to use virii than there is boxen. I personally use both, but then again I'm a fan of puns and other language oddities. And I wouldn't use those in any professional correspondance. Only when speaking informally.
I think virii is different in that it is the appropriate latin plural of virus. Boxen is just being silly and using an antiquated method of pluralizing a word ending in an ox sound, as in ox -> oxen.
Hmm, I guess that sounds almost like the same thing, but there is a slight difference.
Maybe bluetooth is only 721Kbps... what speed do you think your cell phone would get? The link between the camera and phone wouldn't be the bottleneck here.
Nah... the statement just says that we know what 100% of the known universe is. So it can see 95% as far as our best technology? Or "known universe" may just mean things that are close enough that they were indead casting off light at the time required for light to get here. EG: if a star was formed 9 billion years ago, but it is 10 billion light years away, an optical telescope would not be able to view it (well, at least not for another billion years, and I'm not gonna hold my breath that long.)
Eh... not really. Ice is buoyed up by liquid water, so any difference in density is made up for. Basically, as ice melts, the level stays exactly the same. Kinda neat.
With the global warming issue, the concern is continental glaciers melting. I don't personally know the volume of these, but it's supposedly not insignificant.
And then there's thermal expansion. Warm water is less dense than cold water, so it would therefore take up more room. I think I figured out once that if we were to heat up the oceans by one degree they would raise something like 50 feet. Of course I believe that was assuming a cylinder of water with a depth equal to the average of the ocean's depth. Also assumes that applying normal thermal expansion to the oceanic system would actually still hold true and that the massive pressure of deep oceans doesn't change the physics behind it. Oh, and it would take a _LOT_ of energy to heat all of the oceans up one degree. In all reality in any global warming scenario, most warming would be at the surface. However the warming would eventually push the thermocline down, which in itself could cause massive changes in upwelling patterns. That would cause massive massive changes in... well, lots of stuff.
Obviously you don't party enough. Around here 11:00 pm is when we just get started... all of a sudden the day changes. And it's no big deal. When you are in that timeframe today is "untill I fall asleep" and tomorrow is "when I wake up." It really doesn't faze you once you have some experience with it.
Did anyone else think Spirited Away was overrated?
I dunno. whenever I heard about Spirited Away, people basically said "It's a neat children's movie. Looks really pretty." Sounds like an apt description to me.
Let's start with the box and the liners...
Yeah. That's called hype. Or maybe "advertising." That's become expected in the industry. It's expected in EVERY industry. Not a good thing, but nothing that Miazaki should be called on without caling the whole industry.
I sat there, searching for absolutely anything that would appeal to people over the age of twelve
Now I see why you didn't like it. It _IS_ a children's movie. To enjoy it you don't go in searching for deep meaning or whatever. You just watch the pretty pictures and maybe follow the characters and worry about what will happen to them next. Trust me... that will make the movie watching experience so much better in a lot of instances.
Does love that young/cross-species even make any sense?
Wrong kind of love, dude.
I doubt whether any academic exegesis
As I've been saying, this _IS_ a children's film. I actually think it's refreshing to see a film made for children, not some demographically researched piece of work that tries to appeal to every market segment possible AND make a big stir in academia. No, this guy just wanted to tell some kids a story that will keep their eyes held wide open with amazement. And I think he did that.
Although, yeah. Pixar has some really great films too. But I really doubt that any of them are are worthy of an "academic exegesis."
I mean, we all know the kind of people that would try to blow this films up into the proportions that you are talking about. Capital "A" Art students who try to attach all sorts of meaning to things that just isn't there. They're trying to snow job people into thinking that their painting is worth $50 Million dollars or whatever. They're just practicing on this particular movie.
The spyware could be _INSTALLED_ per say, but would only affect that one user, and potentially is not able to run at boot-up unless the user took a specific action such as running sudo (and had admin privileges in the first place.)
Also *nix and other OSes don't have nearly the problem with file locking (I.E. the ability to delete a running file) that Windows does.
So, it would be possible to create spyware for linux or whatever, it just would not be nearly as profitable.
Or have the ability to scan/test an installer for spyware. This could even be done automatically with an on-access scanner. But then at that point you might as well do an antivirus check on that file...
Woah. So that's the reason for the phrase "... than the leading brand." as in "20% more cotton than the leading brand" or whatever. I just assumed that it was to prevent litigation.
Then again, I suppose the phrase could be used for both reasons.
Okay, I came out a little alarmist there. I do believe that nuclear energy does have its place. But I was saying that nuclear energy is not perfectly safe, and it does have its consequences.
However, as nuclear energy is an extremely powerful tool, it's misuse or neglect can have dire consequences. We need to be careful and take appropriate measures to minimize _ALL_ risks involved.
Also, I was mostly reffering to traditional large scale fusion power plants. I do realize that there are other applications of nuclear energy which appear to be inheritantly less unsafe.
Most of all I was irritated by the use of the term petty. Picture if I came in to a security discussion and said that the fears of crackers actually doing anything are petty. Or dismissed the moral concerns of a religious group as petty.
And hey... the Pierson's Puppeteers can give a significant blow when they turn their back (sorry if I got the quote wrong... been a while since I've read my Niven.)
Ahh... those are pretty neat technologies. I was thinking of traditional uses where heated underground water (think hot springs) is used. In specific I was thinking about large scale operations where the use the thermal energy to spin a turbine to produce electricity.
The applications you are talking about fit into my larger scale philosphy on energy usage; essentially using diverse sources in the way that produces the least impact.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once we find a way to safely store the wastes (High, Mid _AND_ Low level included) for the entirety of their dangerous lifes.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once our engineers actually figure out how to build buildings and bridges that stay up, resisting earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes. ALL the time.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once there are no terrorists who may want to siphon nuclear material out of the system, and making sure that nobody working in the system can be tempted by that extra couple of thousand, million or even more dollars.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once we have operators of the equipment who are infallible, never erring. Never missing some crucial detail, never having a bad day.
Take care of those, then maybe I won't worry about nuclear energy.
One big problem with geothermal is that it is only realistically available in a small number of areas.
And it is expensive to maintain. The mix of chemicals deep in the earth are extremely caustic, IIRC, quickly wearing out the equipment used. And any leaks in the equipment lead to toxic outgassings.
Under server settings there is a checkbox for "check for new messages at startup." I believe that the default is unchecked. Pretty simple to turn it on.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I guess that came about a little different than my _ACTUAL_ beliefs. Yes, in legal terms a corporation has all of the rights of an individual. Now, I don't necessarilly think that is morally or ethically right. But according to the legal system that the United States is under, a corporation has all of the rights that an individual is granted. And from what I've seen, a corporation really don't have the burden of what an individual has to carry. Feel free to infer what you will.
Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"?
Yes, at least legally speaking, that is in fact the very definition and raison d'etre of a corporation. Basically, it it defines a group of people as a seperate entity from its members, bearing legal rights as though it were an individual. The term corporation is derived from Latin meaning "to be a body" where body, in legal terms again, means an individual.
So patents are, given human nature, inherrently evil. I'll agree that this is a contingent fact, but what it's contingent on is human nature, and that doesn't seem to have changed significantly since language first appeared.
Reading this for some reason made me come up with a possible correlate. Even if it is not in human nature for _ALL_ people to be greedy (which is the subset of evil that I believe this thread is covering) it would only take a small number of greedy people to start taking advantage of the system. Once they start taking advantage of the system (patents in this case) they then give themselves an additional adge which allows them to take even more advantage, giving them an even larger edge, untill some other mitigating factor comes in to play.
I suppose this concept is strongly supported by the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" in which any shared limited resource will eventually become overexploited, in this case the resource being ideas. Tragedy of the commons is often thrown about in social sciences, eccology and economics and provides an interesting viewpoint on creating government decisions. I say government because by the nature of reality, the individuals involved will never come to an agreement; some judge or authority has to step in and draw boundaries and limits.
Well, it's been known that they use a pattern in that the arrangement of base units in a line represents a pattern. AFAIK it has not been general knowledge in the biology community that there is a temporal pattern involved with this activation as well. And DNA turning on and off is a little simplistic, there are such things as rate of transcription, how many simultaneous transcriptions occur, etc.
Stock up on canned goods, folks.
And use someone else's credit card?
Yeah... that part is actually a joke my dad used to make back then. Took me a while to get it. THere is a difference, though: the snowbanks were probably mid-thigh high on him or so. Oh, and once snow fell, it was actually likely to stay around. I can't think of one winter since I started college where there was not a major that in January. Case in point it is currently 47F (8C) and there is a thunderstorm outside. I guess I would actually have to talk to a climatologist to see if this is really wierd weather or not, but there was a definate cut-off in local climate here in about 1996 where we just stopped getting normal winters. Err, except winter of 1998/1999. I think we had a big snowfall that stuck around till late february.
I was about to ask if you live in the Midwestern United States, because that sounds _EXACTLY_ like the climate changes I've experienced in the 27 years I've been alive. Then I look at your email address, and it looks to me like you live in Poland? Then again, we have very similar climates, from what I understand. Might make sense that they would change in the same way.
I also remember that when I was a little kid, snowbanks would reach well above my head, nowadays it hardly ever reaches above my knee.
So explain to me how latin plurals are appropriate, but Old English plaurals are only "antiquated?"
That comparison was just these two words. Since virus is derived from a latin word, it can be appropriate to use the latin ending. However, to the best of my knowledge, the word box was not historically pluralized as boxen. It's sort of like pluralizing "moose" as "meese" because more than one "goose" is a group of "geese."
As languages are fluid and change over time, I'm not saying that using the plural boxen is bad. I'm just saying that there are no rules which say it _SHOULD_ be boxen, it is simply creating a play on words based on an exception to a pluralization rule.
Then again the term virii is not the standard pluralization of virus in the english language, either. I'm just saying that there is more reason to use virii than there is boxen. I personally use both, but then again I'm a fan of puns and other language oddities. And I wouldn't use those in any professional correspondance. Only when speaking informally.
I think virii is different in that it is the appropriate latin plural of virus. Boxen is just being silly and using an antiquated method of pluralizing a word ending in an ox sound, as in ox -> oxen.
Hmm, I guess that sounds almost like the same thing, but there is a slight difference.
Neither... it'll be the new Nokia 8675309i featuring cannon G9 technology. Or something like that.
Maybe bluetooth is only 721Kbps... what speed do you think your cell phone would get? The link between the camera and phone wouldn't be the bottleneck here.
Nah... the statement just says that we know what 100% of the known universe is. So it can see 95% as far as our best technology? Or "known universe" may just mean things that are close enough that they were indead casting off light at the time required for light to get here. EG: if a star was formed 9 billion years ago, but it is 10 billion light years away, an optical telescope would not be able to view it (well, at least not for another billion years, and I'm not gonna hold my breath that long.)
I guess someone already explained it better than I could.
Eh... not really. Ice is buoyed up by liquid water, so any difference in density is made up for. Basically, as ice melts, the level stays exactly the same. Kinda neat.
With the global warming issue, the concern is continental glaciers melting. I don't personally know the volume of these, but it's supposedly not insignificant.
And then there's thermal expansion. Warm water is less dense than cold water, so it would therefore take up more room. I think I figured out once that if we were to heat up the oceans by one degree they would raise something like 50 feet. Of course I believe that was assuming a cylinder of water with a depth equal to the average of the ocean's depth. Also assumes that applying normal thermal expansion to the oceanic system would actually still hold true and that the massive pressure of deep oceans doesn't change the physics behind it. Oh, and it would take a _LOT_ of energy to heat all of the oceans up one degree. In all reality in any global warming scenario, most warming would be at the surface. However the warming would eventually push the thermocline down, which in itself could cause massive changes in upwelling patterns. That would cause massive massive changes in... well, lots of stuff.
Woah. Where did that come from?
If not on foot, then definately on bicycle.
Obviously you don't party enough. Around here 11:00 pm is when we just get started... all of a sudden the day changes. And it's no big deal. When you are in that timeframe today is "untill I fall asleep" and tomorrow is "when I wake up." It really doesn't faze you once you have some experience with it.
Did anyone else think Spirited Away was overrated?
I dunno. whenever I heard about Spirited Away, people basically said "It's a neat children's movie. Looks really pretty." Sounds like an apt description to me.
Let's start with the box and the liners...
Yeah. That's called hype. Or maybe "advertising." That's become expected in the industry. It's expected in EVERY industry. Not a good thing, but nothing that Miazaki should be called on without caling the whole industry.
I sat there, searching for absolutely anything that would appeal to people over the age of twelve
Now I see why you didn't like it. It _IS_ a children's movie. To enjoy it you don't go in searching for deep meaning or whatever. You just watch the pretty pictures and maybe follow the characters and worry about what will happen to them next. Trust me... that will make the movie watching experience so much better in a lot of instances.
Does love that young/cross-species even make any sense?
Wrong kind of love, dude.
I doubt whether any academic exegesis
As I've been saying, this _IS_ a children's film. I actually think it's refreshing to see a film made for children, not some demographically researched piece of work that tries to appeal to every market segment possible AND make a big stir in academia. No, this guy just wanted to tell some kids a story that will keep their eyes held wide open with amazement. And I think he did that.
Although, yeah. Pixar has some really great films too. But I really doubt that any of them are are worthy of an "academic exegesis."
I mean, we all know the kind of people that would try to blow this films up into the proportions that you are talking about. Capital "A" Art students who try to attach all sorts of meaning to things that just isn't there. They're trying to snow job people into thinking that their painting is worth $50 Million dollars or whatever. They're just practicing on this particular movie.
What do you mean? I mean with such fine movies as... umm... Clerks.
Oh yeah.
The spyware could be _INSTALLED_ per say, but would only affect that one user, and potentially is not able to run at boot-up unless the user took a specific action such as running sudo (and had admin privileges in the first place.)
Also *nix and other OSes don't have nearly the problem with file locking (I.E. the ability to delete a running file) that Windows does.
So, it would be possible to create spyware for linux or whatever, it just would not be nearly as profitable.
Or have the ability to scan/test an installer for spyware. This could even be done automatically with an on-access scanner. But then at that point you might as well do an antivirus check on that file...
Woah. So that's the reason for the phrase "... than the leading brand." as in "20% more cotton than the leading brand" or whatever. I just assumed that it was to prevent litigation.
Then again, I suppose the phrase could be used for both reasons.
Okay, I came out a little alarmist there. I do believe that nuclear energy does have its place. But I was saying that nuclear energy is not perfectly safe, and it does have its consequences.
However, as nuclear energy is an extremely powerful tool, it's misuse or neglect can have dire consequences. We need to be careful and take appropriate measures to minimize _ALL_ risks involved.
Also, I was mostly reffering to traditional large scale fusion power plants. I do realize that there are other applications of nuclear energy which appear to be inheritantly less unsafe.
Most of all I was irritated by the use of the term petty. Picture if I came in to a security discussion and said that the fears of crackers actually doing anything are petty. Or dismissed the moral concerns of a religious group as petty.
And hey... the Pierson's Puppeteers can give a significant blow when they turn their back (sorry if I got the quote wrong... been a while since I've read my Niven.)
Ahh... those are pretty neat technologies. I was thinking of traditional uses where heated underground water (think hot springs) is used. In specific I was thinking about large scale operations where the use the thermal energy to spin a turbine to produce electricity.
The applications you are talking about fit into my larger scale philosphy on energy usage; essentially using diverse sources in the way that produces the least impact.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once we find a way to safely store the wastes (High, Mid _AND_ Low level included) for the entirety of their dangerous lifes.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once our engineers actually figure out how to build buildings and bridges that stay up, resisting earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes. ALL the time.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once there are no terrorists who may want to siphon nuclear material out of the system, and making sure that nobody working in the system can be tempted by that extra couple of thousand, million or even more dollars.
I'll get over my "petty" fears of nuclear energy once we have operators of the equipment who are infallible, never erring. Never missing some crucial detail, never having a bad day.
Take care of those, then maybe I won't worry about nuclear energy.
One big problem with geothermal is that it is only realistically available in a small number of areas.
And it is expensive to maintain. The mix of chemicals deep in the earth are extremely caustic, IIRC, quickly wearing out the equipment used. And any leaks in the equipment lead to toxic outgassings.
Under server settings there is a checkbox for "check for new messages at startup." I believe that the default is unchecked. Pretty simple to turn it on.