Sorry, I meant "AD".. in German the abbreviations are "v.Chr." and "n.Chr.", and because the time before the birth of Jesus is called "BC" in english, I was fast with using "AC".
"There is no such physical process which only effects in transporting caloric energy from a warmer body to a cooler."
So whenever you move excess heat from an already cooler building to an warmer outside, you need at least a second process to make that happen - and this process in all cases involves putting even more heat out.
You know, back in the 70ies, there was the expectation that the global weather may be cooling in the next 3000 years. (I still have my old books from the time;) ). This in no way contradicts a global warming within the next 100 years.
All the climate raw data is published, the last data was published a month ago when some of the recording stations lifted the copyright on said data. So come back when you have some valid claims other than "I don't know nothing, and I want it that way".
No, they are 1) not the same scientists and 2) the global cooling was predicted for 5000 AC, which in no way contradicts a gobal warming until 2150 AC. It is still possible that it cools down in about 3000 years time. But for the next 100 years, we have other problems.
Please stop repeating prejudices you got somewhere without ever fact checking them.
GPL wasn't created to abolish closed source. GPL was created to make sure that once free code stays free. When the MIT fixed some bugs in the original UNIX code and added some of the code themselves, UNIX Source labs suddenly stepped up, pointed at the source code license and claimed ownership for all the stuff MIT created. Additionally they took the code, incorporated it in the original UNIX and forbid MIT to provide their source code to others. That's when RMS came into play and created a license which guaranteed that this can't happen again.
And if some people continue to claim the BSD license was so much more free and better, they should be told this little story and explain, how the BSD license would have avoided this problem.
It's pretty simple and known to man since Archimedes.
The ascending force equals the amount of water displaced. Floating ice thus will displace exactly the volume of water corresponding to its weight. And if it melts, it will have exactly the volume of the water displaced, because it's water itself.
No. We didn't directly measure dark matter, we just found a situation where the model General Relativity gives us differs greatly from the measurements of the actual event. It just means that we can't fully describe the collision of two galaxies yet. If we want General Relativity to describe the collision, we have to account for some "non-matter" (as it seems not to have normal matter properties like interaction with electromagnetism). If we assume that General Relativity is just an approximation then the non- or dark matter is not necessary, it's basically the difference between the model General Relativity gives to us and the actual measurements. The article just describes a model of which General Relativity is an approximation and which seems to fit better to the observation.
The main difference for me is that something that was stolen can used by the new owner the same way than the old, rightful owner could have used it. If I steal a car, I can drive it as its rightful owner could drive it. If I steal money, I can go shopping or put it in a savings account as the rightful owner could have done. But if I infringe on someone's copyright by unlicensed copying, I can not use it as the copyright holder could. I can not sublicense it for instance. There are types of copyright infringement where sublicensing would be possible (e.g. plagiarism), but to create a plagiat, I have at least to create a little myself, so the original copyright owner cannot sell my plagiat as his own work, he can only demand the erasing of the plagiat. So neither unlicensed copying nor plagiarism (as two main types of copyright infringement) are similar to theft in that way that the object can be used by either party as if the party was the rightful owner.
Ethically, there is also little difference between the other examples I mentioned and theft. In all cases one causes damages to others for personal gain. But that's exactly the point! If you label all cases of "causing damages to other people for personal gain" as theft, then the special case for theft (removing an object out of the reach of the rightful owner without his consent to use it yourself) needs another name.
If I build an identical house than you have, I don't steal your house. If I buy an identical car than you have, I don't steal your car. If I wear identical clothes than you, I don't steal your clothes. If I copy your book line by line, I don't steal your book.
Just because some act damages your financial outcome, it's not automatically theft. Just because some act gets me value, and deprives you of value, it's not automatically theft.
If I walk through your garden and thus disturb your privacy, I don't steal your garden. It's trespassing. If I damage your reputation and get the job you were applying for too, I am not a reputation thief. It's libel. If I beat you up to get street cred, I am not a health thief. It's serious bodily harm.
There are so many things I can harm you with and be better of myself after that, and most of them are not theft.
Call them, for what they are. Call a copyright infringment copyright infringment and not "IP theft". Call assault and battery assault and battery, and not "health theft". Call libel libel and not "reputation theft".
No, it is not. It states explicitly: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Kant' categorical imperative seeks universality. It talks about maxims, not about context and circumstances. If something is right for one person, it has to be right for all people. If something is just for a situation, it has to be just in general.
The page is still calculated from the data transferred. It's not as if the site providing the article is prerendering everything and then send it uncompressed to the viewport. So different than a book, where every page is finished and stored for ever, the pages of a webserver are indeed calculated every moment you view them. And most people are aware of that, because they know that pages change their layout on the fly if one resizes the browser window.
It's because the current crowd often has a different ideology than the original nationalsocialists. The current crowd's main theme is no longer that inferior races should be eliminated, but that cultures should be separated. The very idea of people with a different cultural background in the same country/place/neighbourhood is frown upon, and the main claim is that every multi-ethnic empire ever has failed (while ignoring the fact that every national state has failed too).
Kant's categorical imperative has a big problem, it leds to cattle cycles. If it is good for you to sell all your cattle now, it will be good for everyone, and everyone is selling cattle like crazy, bringing the price of cattle down etc.pp.
There is a similar problem with navigaton gear that tries to find automatic routes around a traffic jam. If every navigation device is using the same algorithm to determine the new route, those will be immediately be jammed too, because everyone is leaving the road and trying the same diversion.
Kant's categorical imperative, as fair as it might be in treating everyone equally, leads to a very unbalanced usage of ressources.
That's exactly what N00ter tries to find out: Who's throttling my traffic? If the N00ter doesn't find any ISP-dependant variance in speed then the site itself might be to blame.
We are talking about the subtropics here, right? So we have as Vitamin A sources: peach, apricot, pumpkins and melons, yam and mango, just to name a few. No, it's not a problem to get Vitamin A in the subtropics.
The problem is not the facial recognition itself, it's the tagging and linking of faces you recognized with the faces and profiles of others, that's done a) automatically and b) without you being able to opt out. So from a privacy law point of view it's totally ok to tag all your Picasa pictures with the names of the people - as long as you don't share this information with anyone else. And that's the problem with Facebook's way of doing things. Because your profile picture can not be opted out of the face recognition in Facebook, it's still possible to link pictures others share, and where they tag you, to your profile. And that's the privacy violation Germany is complaining about.
No, and German Privacy Law Officers (Datenschutzbeauftragte) are calling out companies who collect data on the internet for a living all the time for violating the Privacy Laws and are imposing fines on them. Yes, it can be very expensive in Germany to not adhere to privacy laws.
What's so great about Golden Rice? Grow a strain of rice with more yield, that's adapted to the local conditions, and then on the fields you don't need anymore for rice, you can grow Vitamin A rich vegetables. Golden Rice is an exercise in "look what we made", but nothing productive.
Which is completely misrepresenting the case. Of course the guy has published material. But publishing something does not make one guilty. Only if he broke a law, he can be considered guilty, and it's the job of the prosecution to prove the break. If the prosecution fails (for what reason ever), it's the prosecution's fault. So we now can say: Whatever the guy published, the prosecution was unable to prove that he did it in a criminal manner. And if the judge tells the prosecutor that he, after causing much bruhaha and disturbing the defendant's life for four years failing to prove anything (even if it was because the government didn't want the documents in question go on public record), got it completely wrong, then the judge is fully right. It was much ado about nothing.
As I said: It's not the fashion design that is copyrightable. It's the picture, the sculpture or whatever has copyright protection also outside of fashion, which is protected. The design, the cut, the fabric chosen, the colors - they aren't copyrightable, not even in the context of the given combination.
Slashdot Mirror
At least East Germany (which was under Communist rule) had a patent system. So your premises need some adjustment.
Sorry, I meant "AD".. in German the abbreviations are "v.Chr." and "n.Chr.", and because the time before the birth of Jesus is called "BC" in english, I was fast with using "AC".
The second law of Thermodynamics is the problem.
"There is no such physical process which only effects in transporting caloric energy from a warmer body to a cooler."
So whenever you move excess heat from an already cooler building to an warmer outside, you need at least a second process to make that happen - and this process in all cases involves putting even more heat out.
You know, back in the 70ies, there was the expectation that the global weather may be cooling in the next 3000 years. (I still have my old books from the time ;) ). This in no way contradicts a global warming within the next 100 years.
All the climate raw data is published, the last data was published a month ago when some of the recording stations lifted the copyright on said data.
So come back when you have some valid claims other than "I don't know nothing, and I want it that way".
No, they are 1) not the same scientists and 2) the global cooling was predicted for 5000 AC, which in no way contradicts a gobal warming until 2150 AC. It is still possible that it cools down in about 3000 years time. But for the next 100 years, we have other problems.
Please stop repeating prejudices you got somewhere without ever fact checking them.
It's in Kenya (at Mt. Kilimandsharo) and in Equador (in the Andes). What do I win?
GPL wasn't created to abolish closed source. GPL was created to make sure that once free code stays free. When the MIT fixed some bugs in the original UNIX code and added some of the code themselves, UNIX Source labs suddenly stepped up, pointed at the source code license and claimed ownership for all the stuff MIT created. Additionally they took the code, incorporated it in the original UNIX and forbid MIT to provide their source code to others.
That's when RMS came into play and created a license which guaranteed that this can't happen again.
And if some people continue to claim the BSD license was so much more free and better, they should be told this little story and explain, how the BSD license would have avoided this problem.
Not at all.
It's pretty simple and known to man since Archimedes.
The ascending force equals the amount of water displaced. Floating ice thus will displace exactly the volume of water corresponding to its weight. And if it melts, it will have exactly the volume of the water displaced, because it's water itself.
Hm...I drove a set of tyres for about 20000 miles on the car, but tyres for my bicycle hardly go more than 5000 miles.
No. We didn't directly measure dark matter, we just found a situation where the model General Relativity gives us differs greatly from the measurements of the actual event.
It just means that we can't fully describe the collision of two galaxies yet. If we want General Relativity to describe the collision, we have to account for some "non-matter" (as it seems not to have normal matter properties like interaction with electromagnetism).
If we assume that General Relativity is just an approximation then the non- or dark matter is not necessary, it's basically the difference between the model General Relativity gives to us and the actual measurements. The article just describes a model of which General Relativity is an approximation and which seems to fit better to the observation.
The main difference for me is that something that was stolen can used by the new owner the same way than the old, rightful owner could have used it.
If I steal a car, I can drive it as its rightful owner could drive it. If I steal money, I can go shopping or put it in a savings account as the rightful owner could have done.
But if I infringe on someone's copyright by unlicensed copying, I can not use it as the copyright holder could. I can not sublicense it for instance.
There are types of copyright infringement where sublicensing would be possible (e.g. plagiarism), but to create a plagiat, I have at least to create a little myself, so the original copyright owner cannot sell my plagiat as his own work, he can only demand the erasing of the plagiat.
So neither unlicensed copying nor plagiarism (as two main types of copyright infringement) are similar to theft in that way that the object can be used by either party as if the party was the rightful owner.
Ethically, there is also little difference between the other examples I mentioned and theft. In all cases one causes damages to others for personal gain.
But that's exactly the point! If you label all cases of "causing damages to other people for personal gain" as theft, then the special case for theft (removing an object out of the reach of the rightful owner without his consent to use it yourself) needs another name.
If I build an identical house than you have, I don't steal your house.
If I buy an identical car than you have, I don't steal your car.
If I wear identical clothes than you, I don't steal your clothes.
If I copy your book line by line, I don't steal your book.
Just because some act damages your financial outcome, it's not automatically theft.
Just because some act gets me value, and deprives you of value, it's not automatically theft.
If I walk through your garden and thus disturb your privacy, I don't steal your garden. It's trespassing.
If I damage your reputation and get the job you were applying for too, I am not a reputation thief. It's libel.
If I beat you up to get street cred, I am not a health thief. It's serious bodily harm.
There are so many things I can harm you with and be better of myself after that, and most of them are not theft.
Call them, for what they are. Call a copyright infringment copyright infringment and not "IP theft". Call assault and battery assault and battery, and not "health theft". Call libel libel and not "reputation theft".
No, it is not. It states explicitly: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Kant' categorical imperative seeks universality. It talks about maxims, not about context and circumstances. If something is right for one person, it has to be right for all people. If something is just for a situation, it has to be just in general.
The page is still calculated from the data transferred. It's not as if the site providing the article is prerendering everything and then send it uncompressed to the viewport. So different than a book, where every page is finished and stored for ever, the pages of a webserver are indeed calculated every moment you view them. And most people are aware of that, because they know that pages change their layout on the fly if one resizes the browser window.
It's because the current crowd often has a different ideology than the original nationalsocialists. The current crowd's main theme is no longer that inferior races should be eliminated, but that cultures should be separated. The very idea of people with a different cultural background in the same country/place/neighbourhood is frown upon, and the main claim is that every multi-ethnic empire ever has failed (while ignoring the fact that every national state has failed too).
Kant's categorical imperative has a big problem, it leds to cattle cycles. If it is good for you to sell all your cattle now, it will be good for everyone, and everyone is selling cattle like crazy, bringing the price of cattle down etc.pp.
There is a similar problem with navigaton gear that tries to find automatic routes around a traffic jam. If every navigation device is using the same algorithm to determine the new route, those will be immediately be jammed too, because everyone is leaving the road and trying the same diversion.
Kant's categorical imperative, as fair as it might be in treating everyone equally, leads to a very unbalanced usage of ressources.
That's exactly what N00ter tries to find out: Who's throttling my traffic? If the N00ter doesn't find any ISP-dependant variance in speed then the site itself might be to blame.
We are talking about the subtropics here, right?
So we have as Vitamin A sources: peach, apricot, pumpkins and melons, yam and mango, just to name a few.
No, it's not a problem to get Vitamin A in the subtropics.
The problem is not the facial recognition itself, it's the tagging and linking of faces you recognized with the faces and profiles of others, that's done a) automatically and b) without you being able to opt out.
So from a privacy law point of view it's totally ok to tag all your Picasa pictures with the names of the people - as long as you don't share this information with anyone else. And that's the problem with Facebook's way of doing things.
Because your profile picture can not be opted out of the face recognition in Facebook, it's still possible to link pictures others share, and where they tag you, to your profile. And that's the privacy violation Germany is complaining about.
No, and German Privacy Law Officers (Datenschutzbeauftragte) are calling out companies who collect data on the internet for a living all the time for violating the Privacy Laws and are imposing fines on them.
Yes, it can be very expensive in Germany to not adhere to privacy laws.
What's so great about Golden Rice? Grow a strain of rice with more yield, that's adapted to the local conditions, and then on the fields you don't need anymore for rice, you can grow Vitamin A rich vegetables.
Golden Rice is an exercise in "look what we made", but nothing productive.
Which is completely misrepresenting the case. Of course the guy has published material. But publishing something does not make one guilty. Only if he broke a law, he can be considered guilty, and it's the job of the prosecution to prove the break. If the prosecution fails (for what reason ever), it's the prosecution's fault.
So we now can say: Whatever the guy published, the prosecution was unable to prove that he did it in a criminal manner. And if the judge tells the prosecutor that he, after causing much bruhaha and disturbing the defendant's life for four years failing to prove anything (even if it was because the government didn't want the documents in question go on public record), got it completely wrong, then the judge is fully right. It was much ado about nothing.
As I said: It's not the fashion design that is copyrightable. It's the picture, the sculpture or whatever has copyright protection also outside of fashion, which is protected. The design, the cut, the fabric chosen, the colors - they aren't copyrightable, not even in the context of the given combination.